Talk:Nicaraguan Canal and Development Project/Archives/2013

Colombian and Costa Rican claims to territorial waters and judge bias?

I've heard a Chinese judge acting on behalf of international courts sided with Nicaragua before the canal project's Chinese link was made public, apparently the territorial water claim was of paramount importance for this project to go ahead. Can someone include this is the update if the story has valid sources? I would do it myself if I actually knew how it works. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.208.161.48 (talk) 22:51, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

I read on Spiegel today that it has moved a step closer after a HongKong based firm was appointed to build it. Finance looks like coming from various sources, public and private. Although it's flying under the radar, today is also the annual (43rd) OAS meeting in Guatemala where they may hammer out a few things because Spiegel writes that part of the route contains disputed borders between Nicaragua and Costa Rica. Unlike in Cartagena last year, Obama does not appear to be attending this OAS conference. Well, what I really meant to ask: "Under the Bryan-Chamorro Treaty of 1916, the United States paid Nicaragua US$3 million for an option in perpetuity and free of taxation, ...." Surely that could not have been a once-off payment and then the word annual would be missing. A new canal is supposed to accommodate gigantic ships. Well, competition is always good - or so they say. 144.136.192.45 (talk) 06:30, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Ecologic consequenes for Lake Nicaragua?

If the canal would be built, wouldn't it bring in seawater into see sweet-water Lake Nicaragua and risk the introduction of non-native species into the ecosystem? Gryffindor (talk) 08:23, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Lake Nicaragua is at an elevation a good bit above sea level (32 meters per the Wikipedia article). Presumably locks would be needed for the elevation difference. Infrogmation (talk) 12:11, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

• With the Panama Canal the artificial Gatun Lake is at the highest level of the canal. Each time a vessel uses a lock to proceed down to the ocean level it draws a lock full of water from the lake. Those locks are enormous. When new even larger Super-panamax locks are installed the limiting factor on the Panama Canal may be that insufficient water will flow into Lake Gatun to keep filling the locks.

If I read the details correctly the path from Lake Nicaragua to the Pacific Ocean will require locks that go up another hundred meters to the Continental Divide, before they transit down to the Pacific. So where will the water to power those locks come from?

I don't believe there is a canal anywhere on planet earth where water is pumped uphill to power locks. Normally, if there isn't a head of water to fill the locks, the canal isn't built. So, how to get around the lack of a head of water to power the locks over the continental divide?

1. Build a really deep artificial canyon with a canal at the bottom, like the Corinth Canal, that doesn't require locks to rise over the mountains from Lake Nicaragua. This is likely to be really expensive.
2. Build massive aqueducts from distant sources of high altitude water? Does Latin America have sufficient sources of high altitude water? Will neighboring countries agree to the export of their valuable water? If so that could take a big bite from the profits. Global warming could dry up those water sources.
3. There are alternatives to traditional locks, that can raise and lower vessels without using huge amounts of water. In English these engines are called lift locks, boat lifts, ship lifts, or canal inclined planes. But the capacity of the largest working example, in Belgium, is about 1 percent the Panamax aimed at for the Nicaragua Canal. The Chinese planned to build a ship lift to supplement the conventional locks at the Three Gorges Dam. The Three Gorges Ship Lift's capacity was supposed to be vessels of 3,000 tons displacement. That would have been just over 1 percent the Super-Panamax vessels aimed at for the Nicaragua Canal. And the Chinese have never explained why the Three Gorges Ship Lift is almost eight years late. I suspect they will never complete that ship lift.

Maybe the Chinese company has no immediate plans to build the canal? Maybe it is simply a gamble, or a bargaining chip, to be started in the unlikely event something makes it economically viable at some point between now and 2065? Fifty years is a long time. Geo Swan (talk) 08:16, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Possibility of seperating off canals from the lake

After taking a look at the different routes, it strikes me that it would be possible to seperate off the canal from the lake, simply by placing a dam across the most southern part of the lake (so in effect dividing the lake into 2 smaller parts). This lower part could then be connected to the atlantic ocean via Rio San Juan and to the pacific via a new canal dug about at Peñas Blancas. The lower part can then become saltier without any problem/effect to the fauna/flora. Perhaps that a few connections between the 2 lakes can be kept, and valves can be integrated on these connections. That way, the upper lake can be made slightly saltier now and then, the approach being similar to the Moses project at Venice, Italy. KVDP (talk) 08:37, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

re: ecological route

the paragraph says "The last route proposed (route 4) is the route which would have the least environmental impact. Route 4 requires to deepen the Rio San Juan and add new locks. However, despite the much lower environmental impact, and the smaller cost in comparison to the other routes, HKND has stated it would not use this route.[13]"

However, the cited article makes no such claim. it doesnt even mention an ecological route — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.227.226.11 (talk) 19:33, 5 September 2013 (UTC)