China wants a canal to cross Thailand into the Indian Ocean

[cmarshall]

54 minutes ago, fangless said:

The brits were in decline when Nassar took back the Suez,  China in in the ascendancy now. No chance of Thailand taking it back any time soon if it is built

More to the point the US was hostile to the British attempt to re-establish colonial control over Egypt.  The US had a large supply of pounds sterling.  President Eisenhower threaten to sell sterling to devalue the pound unless the UK aborted the invasion at which point Eden buckled ending the expedition along with his career.

[ICELANDMAN]

27 minutes ago, Moonlover said:

I disagree. Using approximate figures, a ship running from off the coast of HCMC, Vietnam to a point in the Andaman Sea off the west coast of the proposed canal routes would cover around 1,200 miles. At 30mph (forget knots for now) the journey would take around 40 hours.

 

If a canal were available the distance would be reduced to 800 miles so, in theory the journey time would be reduced to 26 hours, a saving of 14 hours. However one must factor in the increase in time it would take to negotiate the canal at a much reduced speed plus possible waiting time for a 'passage slot'. 

 

The cost of passage through the canal would have to very cheap (in shipping terms) to temp shipping companies and their captains to undertake the arduous undertaking that a canal transit would involve. Both the Panama and the Suez canals have the great advantage of greatly reduced distances. This project does not.

 

The Malacca Straits are difficult enough already, without adding the complexity of a canal transit.

If the Chinese want it, it is not only for the transport economy but also for logistics in the event of an economic or military war, the war of the opium remained in their memory

 

[Moonlover]

9 minutes ago, fangless said:

According to "ship and bunker Average speed of VLCC's is under 15knots.  the average is 12.57 laden and 13.3 bunkered.  

VLCCs would be the least likely vessels to use the canal, due to their lack of maneuverability. The average speed of cargo vessels is 24 knot (around 28mph)

 

10 minutes ago, fangless said:

The Suez Canal is 193 Km.  Most of the routes under discussion here are less.

You misunderstood my comment. I was referring to the distances between ports, not the transit through the canal itself.

[ICELANDMAN]

15 minutes ago, Radar501 said:

US$30 billion?........far canal!!!!

Cost calculate with the big brown envelopes LOL

[fangless]

1 minute ago, Moonlover said:

average speed of cargo vessels is 24 knot (around 28mph)

Where are you getting your speeds from. 

 You would probably find that they are nearly all in a band of between 12 to 25 knots with the greatest number falling in the band between 15-20 knots.  

[fangless]

8 minutes ago, Moonlover said:

You misunderstood my comment. I was referring to the distances between ports, not the transit through the canal itself.

I quoted the distance between the two ports Port Said to the southern terminus of Port Tewfik which is 193.30 km (120.11 mi).  You quoted the Panama and Suez canals! What "distances between ports" are you discussing?

[Grumpy John]

OK,  the decision to go ahead is taken and it's now 2026 and China is at war with the West.  In the canal sitting on the bottom is a super tanker ablaze from burning oil.  How long to get the fire put out,  refloat the wreck to move it to a location out of the canal? Ps: No other shipping can get through while it is there. 

[fangless]

SCHOOL OF MARITIME STUDIES

 

There are various kind of vessels in shipping industry. The speed depends on her size and type of the ship.

Some different type of ships and their speed.

1. REEFER SHIP: which carry Fruits, vegetables, meat, fish, dairy products., Average Speed: 20–22 knots.

2. ROOL ON - ROLL OFF: Cars, trucks, train coaches. Average speed: 18–22 knots.

3. OIL TANKER: Crude oil, petroleum product. Average Speed: 12–16 knots.

4. GAS CARRIER: LPG, LNG, liquified Chemical Gas. Average Speed: 15-20 knots.

5. CONTAINER SHIP: Container size of TEU: (Twenty foot equivalent unit: 20*8*8 feet) , FEU: (Forty foot equivalent unit: 40*8*8 feet), Average Speed: 18-24 knots.

6. GENERAL DRY CARGO: wheat, cement barley, rice, maize. Average Speed: 10-12 knots.

7. DRY CARGO CONTAINER: Break bulk, Palates, bagged rice, bagged cement etc. Average Speed: 12-15 knots.

8. BULK CARGO: Grain, coal, ore etc. Average speed: 18-20 knots.

9. CRUISE SHIP: Carry Passengers, Average speed: 22-25 Knots.

Knots is a unit of speed in Nautical Miles.

1 Knot = 1.852 km.

[potless]

4 hours ago, webfact said:

Beijing might back Muslim rebels to secede if Thailand becomes less China-friendly: Foreign Policy

By Matthew Strong, Taiwan News, Staff Writer

 

4 hours ago, webfact said:

TAIPEI (Taiwan News) — As tension between China and India mounts,

Seems to be an anti Chinese scaremongering story. And if tensions between India and China were to ever escalate in coming years, why would Thailand make itself a target by providing a supply line for China?

[PatOngo]

1 hour ago, warcy said:

Europeans spreading their language and culture to Americas and Australia is alright?

 

Why the double standard?

 

China is a capitalist country now.

Nihao ma! Emperor Xi Jinping, the emperor for life in a one party (CCP) state! Yeah right!

[John Drake]

1 hour ago, Poet said:

Today, the US can block that supply by placing a warship in the Straits of Malacca.

Seems even easier to blockade a canal.

[holy cow cm]

3 hours ago, RotBenz8888 said:

It only takes some "gifts" from China to the Thai decision makers to make it happen. 

Unfortunately I think you hit the nail directly on the head with the Chinese commie hammer. The Generals all privately become richer as they don't care about anything but themselves.

[spidermike007]

This would be an incredibly difficult project. A rail makes alot more sense. And this would undoubtedly give China alot of control over Thailand. It is likely they would want total control over the canal. That would be a huge mistake on the part of Thailand, in terms of it's sovereignty. 

 

A serious concern associated with the construction of the canal is its possible impact on Thai sovereignty and security. The southern portion of the country (south of the proposed canal) has seen an increasing divide between Thai Buddhists and Thailand’s Malay Muslims. The historical animosity between the two groups stems from 1902, when Thailand first annexed the independent state of Patani. In the last few decades, due to the mismanagement of the government, the southern part of the country has seen an increase in insurgency attacks. The construction of the Kra Canal would further exacerbate the volatile region, creating further divisions within the country.

 

https://thediplomat.com/2018/04/thailands-kra-canal-chinas-way-around-the-malacca-strait/

[fangless]

6 minutes ago, John Drake said:

Seems even easier to blockade a canal.

It took a declaration of mines having been laid (there were none) and the placing of block ships in the Suez call only a few days to close it.  It took the USN, RN and French navy two years to clear and re-open it(1975/76) Operation Rheostat 1 &2.  

[Poet]

1 minute ago, John Drake said:

Seems even easier to blockade a canal.

It has to do with who owns the territorial waters. The US would not be able to block the canal without Thailand's permission or it would infringing Thai sovereignty.

Singapore, on the other hand, has a long-standing agreement that allows the US Navy to use Sembawang as a naval base.
 

[holy cow cm]

In reality the world should look at this as a potential act of world control and domination. Silent world war 3 here. I really think China needs its nose bloodied sooner than the later.

[John Drake]

7 minutes ago, holy cow cm said:

In reality the world should look at this as a potential act of world control and domination. Silent world war 3 here. I really think China needs its nose bloodied sooner than the later.

I wouldn't look to the US for help. It may not even be a single, unified country in a few more years. A lot of people who hate the US are about to get what they've been dreaming of. I wonder if they're going to like the world it produces?

[Poet]

3 minutes ago, spidermike007 said:

A rail makes alot more sense.

Surely, if the objective is to continue the flow of Middle Eastern oil during conflicts, a pipeline would make more sense than a railway line.

I think, though, that a canal offers them more certainty as it would be harder to disrupt than a pipeline. The price would, of course, be massively higher but they might consider that worth it for the strategic value.

[bkk6060]

4 hours ago, baansgr said:

Under the Anglo-Thai peace treaty signed in 1946, they are not allowed to build a canal without permission from the British Government....along with the fact it would offer the resurgents in the South advantages, it isn't going to happen...

Just like the take over of Hong Kong would not happen?

Unfortunately, the British have a long history of broken treaties/agreements with other parties and they usually do nothing about it.

[rvaviator]

Maybe a daft question ... if this is intended to be used for speeding up supplies  during a 'time of war' .. Would it not be pretty easy to just bomb the canal ? ... a bit like shooting fish in a barrel ?

 

Or a sending a few torpedoes along it with a ship in it .. would be a nice 'plug'

[Moonlover]

1 hour ago, fangless said:

1 hour ago, Moonlover said:

You misunderstood my comment. I was referring to the distances between ports, not the transit through the canal itself.

 

1 hour ago, fangless said:

I quoted the distance between the two ports Port Said to the southern terminus of Port Tewfik which is 193.30 km (120.11 mi).  You quoted the Panama and Suez canals! What "distances between ports" are you discussing?

I do acknowledge that the use of the word 'transit' was misleading. Better to have referred to 'overall journey time', port to port. Both the Suez and the Panama offer clear advantages by not having to round the capes.

 

A 'Thailand Canal' would offer very little savings in overall journey times, no matter what the speed of the vessels. 

[fangless]

3 minutes ago, Moonlover said:

 

I do acknowledge that the use of the word 'transit' was misleading. Better to have referred to 'overall journey time', port to port. Both the Suez and the Panama offer clear advantages by not having to round the capes.

 

A 'Thailand Canal' would offer very little savings in overall journey times, no matter what the speed of the vessels. 

Instead of having to circle around Malaysia, ships would just have to pass through the canal to travel to and from the South China Sea. This is estimated to save at least 1200 km of travel, 2 – 3 days of sailing time, and up to 350,000 USD for a 100,000 dead-weight tonnage ship 

[hotchilli]

5 hours ago, webfact said:

TAIPEI (Taiwan News) — As tension between China and India mounts, the former wants to build a canal across Thailand’s Isthmus of Kra to shorten its access to the Indian Ocean by 1,100 kilometers, reports said Thursday (Sept. 3).

Strange how this happens to come up at a time when Thailands pockets are empty and China can help out with finances?

It wouldn't surprise me one bit if Thailand had talks about this.

[Chang_paarp]

Did anyone notice the source for this article? 

The Taiwanese pres are not known for their pro-Beijing stance. This can be filed under scare mongering and attempting to get the attention of other countries.

[rvaviator]

2 hours ago, Surelynot said:

That is a fair point.....the English, in particular, wrecked havoc around the world with their missionaries, zealots and flag planting.....the only argument in favor of the West is that 'we' promote democracy rather than communism and dictatorships.

But not everyone in Asia see 'democracy' as such a great thing ...  Some see 'strong leaders' who provide for the majority as more important .. Compared to our western thinking of 'personal freedom and democracy'.

[Nout]

It will be Chinese Contractors and Chinese labour.

[rvaviator]

1 hour ago, PatOngo said:

Nihao ma! Emperor Xi Jinping, the emperor for life in a one party (CCP) state! Yeah right!

Capitalistic one party state .... Simple ...  

[Sakeopete]

With low fuel costs and shipping rates it's not worth it. Then again Thailand buying submarines makes no sense either.

[Tagged]

2 minutes ago, Sakeopete said:

With low fuel costs and shipping rates it's not worth it. Then again Thailand buying submarines makes no sense either.

Strategic purposes, but again, if there will be a conflict, I would not live close to a kanal like this. Great and easy target. 

[PatOngo]

39 minutes ago, rvaviator said:

Maybe a daft question ... if this is intended to be used for speeding up supplies  during a 'time of war' .. Would it not be pretty easy to just bomb the canal ? ... a bit like shooting fish in a barrel ?

 

Or a sending a few torpedoes along it with a ship in it .. would be a nice 'plug'

Any aggressors will be intercepted by Thai submarines!