Phuket Poll: Should Thailand build the Kra Canal?

[webfact]

Phuket Poll: Should Thailand build the Kra Canal?

The Phuket News

 

The current proposed Kra Canal route 9A cuts across the Kra Isthmus about 100 kilometres south of Phuket. Image: Google Maps / Courtesy of Pakdee Tanapura

 

PHUKET: Since The Phuket News posted its special report on the Kra Canal earlier this month, the potential mega-project has rated high in the news with international press reports from Malaysia and Singapore attempting to downplay the importance the canal could have for Thailand.

 

The report by The Phuket News put forward the arguments in favour of the canal put forward by two key figures of the Thai Canal Association for Study and Development – Royal Thai Navy Adm (Rtd) Soopakorn Boonranadiloak and Pakdee Tanapura.

 

The pair, as guest speakers at a British Chamber of Commerce in Thailand (BCCT) Phuket Business Dinner event on Feb 1, confirmed that the association had filed a formal request to the current government to undertake a full feasibility study to make the Kra Canal a reality.

 

Full story: https://www.thephuketnews.com/phuket-poll-should-thailand-build-the-kra-canal-65961.php

 

-- © Copyright Phuket News 2018-02-14

[njpski]

That Singapore and Malaysia are against the canal show how valuable it will be to Thailand

[Old Croc]

I've been on a ship in the Malacca Strait and been amazed at the amount of shipping in highway-like lines plying the narrow strait.

I would like to see the canal built to ease this congestion now and into the future.

Singapore and Malaysia naturally have concerns at possible loss of trade, and there could be environmental worries with the concept as well. Some also think it may form a demarcation line for southern scenarists to push for their own state.

The Chinese would probably love to fund it as it would suit their expansionism plans into the Indian Ocean and give them a bigger footprint in Thailand.

[sebastion]

People are concerned about the Andaman sea and Similan islands being destroyed.
Once the Dawei port in Myanmar finally gets completed you can kiss the enviroment goodbye so why shouldn't Thailand have a short cut to the Andaman sea.





Sent from my SM-G955F using Tapatalk

[ksamuiguy]

Singapore and Malaysia would have no strategic importance.

Just think of the advantages to have direct access to the Pacific Ocean and cut 5-6 days off of the shipping time. Makes Ya think!

Would not even need proposed rail links.

Would not even need a port in Singapore any longer!

Plus the pirates would loose targets.

 

[stevenl]

1 hour ago, ksamuiguy said:

Singapore and Malaysia would have no strategic importance.

Just think of the advantages to have direct access to the Pacific Ocean and cut 5-6 days off of the shipping time. Makes Ya think!

Would not even need proposed rail links.

Would not even need a port in Singapore any longer!

Plus the pirates would loose targets.

 

And how would that help Thailand?

[Psimbo]

28 minutes ago, stevenl said:

And how would that help Thailand?

Huge revenues from the canal, although cheap fuel prices are diverting traffic from the Panama and Suez canals. Article dated 2016 but still interesting reading. I see funding for the Nicaragua Canal has fallen flat. https://news.vice.com/article/ships-are-bypassing-the-suez-and-panama-canals-because-oil-is-so-cheap

[stevenl]

22 minutes ago, Psimbo said:

Huge revenues from the canal, although cheap fuel prices are diverting traffic from the Panama and Suez canals. Article dated 2016 but still interesting reading. I see funding for the Nicaragua Canal has fallen flat. https://news.vice.com/article/ships-are-bypassing-the-suez-and-panama-canals-because-oil-is-so-cheap

Yes, I can see advantages as well, but believe it should not be build, too many environmental negatives.

 

But I was replying to somebody who was basically saying it should be build and gave some advantages that would not benefit Thailand at all.

Edited February 15, 2018 by stevenl

[The Old Bull]

The Panama canal charges big ships hundreds of thousands . Even if you built it to accommodate large container ships

how much could you charge ?  That's the kicker you will have to crunch the numbers to see if it is viable.

[stevenl]

5 minutes ago, The Old Bull said:

The Panama canal charges big ships hundreds of thousands . Even if you built it to accommodate large container ships

how much could you charge ?  That's the kicker you will have to crunch the numbers to see if it is viable.

Economic viability is only one part of the equation.

[jerry921]

The amount the canal could charge as a toll is limited by the cost of going around, in time, fuel & crew costs, plus whatever extra cost you want to add for Malacca pirates. If it's cheaper to go around, the ships will still go around.

 

Since the savings is only 600 km, that severely limits the amount they can charge for passage, it's going to be much less than the panama canal, which saves 8000 miles (12,800km). So just dividing, one would expect the maximum toll to be about 600/12800 or less than 5% of what the panama canal can charge.

 

The time it takes to transit the two canals would have to be figured into a more accurate comparison, and that depends on the number of locks, etc, but the point is looking at what the panama canal rakes in and thinking the Kra Canal could get anywhere near the same amount is overly optimistic.

 

 

[Psimbo]

On 2/15/2018 at 10:26 AM, stevenl said:

Yes, I can see advantages as well, but believe it should not be build, too many environmental negatives.

 

But I was replying to somebody who was basically saying it should be build and gave some advantages that would not benefit Thailand at all.

You should read 'Krazy Karl's' comments about it on the phuket news site- he managed to bring polar routes into it, lol!

[Guest]

What is the sea level difference between two sides of the canal? Min/avg/max?

 

[ExpatOilWorker]

On 2/15/2018 at 3:59 PM, jerry921 said:

The amount the canal could charge as a toll is limited by the cost of going around, in time, fuel & crew costs, plus whatever extra cost you want to add for Malacca pirates. If it's cheaper to go around, the ships will still go around.

 

Since the savings is only 600 km, that severely limits the amount they can charge for passage, it's going to be much less than the panama canal, which saves 8000 miles (12,800km). So just dividing, one would expect the maximum toll to be about 600/12800 or less than 5% of what the panama canal can charge.

 

The time it takes to transit the two canals would have to be figured into a more accurate comparison, and that depends on the number of locks, etc, but the point is looking at what the panama canal rakes in and thinking the Kra Canal could get anywhere near the same amount is overly optimistic.

 

 

The Corinth Canal in Greece with 700 km travel distance saved is a better comparison. It sure is busy with 11,000 ships passing every year.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corinth_Canal

[wotsdermatter]

On 2/14/2018 at 9:45 AM, webfact said:

the association had filed a formal request to the current government to undertake a full feasibility study to make the Kra Canal a reality.

The MRT had many politically linked feasibility studies before finally being constructed and it took many years before finally being constructed.  One excuse that was constantly thrown up against it was how near sea level Bangkok is.  Well, London, Tokyo, and other places all contended with similar problems but went ahead and were successful in making their underground systems   There have already been one or two "studies" conducted for this canal by people who were not engineers, same as those for the MRT.  Just saying.

Edited March 7, 2018 by wotsdermatter