Turkey expects to lay ground for Kanal Istanbul project in summer

[Huelague]

Turkey expects to lay ground for Kanal Istanbul project in summer​

Turkey expects to lay ground for Kanal Istanbul project in summer

Preparations are nearly complete for the Kanal Istanbul project, a huge canal on the edge of Istanbul, President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan said...

www.dailysabah.com

..okay, just kidding . Or maybe not?

 

[Nutuk]

Seriously who thinks a canal is a good idea?

I know there are ideas to alter maybe the Montreux, but why do you need a Canal to alter Montreux?

And if Montreux stays than you have a canal where you ask passage toll while a few kilometers further there is a free entrance, doesn't make much sense to me.

 

[Huelague]

Seriously who thinks a canal is a good idea?

I know there are ideas to alter maybe the Montreux, but why do you need a Canal to alter Montreux?

And if Montreux stays than you have a canal where you ask passage toll while a few kilometers further there is a free entrance, doesn't make much sense to me.

I think it is a good idea.

I talked to RTE, he said to me, he will narrow the Bosporus to force sea traffic to the new Istanbul Canal, because the old one will be stagnant.

 

[Cypro]

Is this a clickbait thread, zaytung news or actually real? I am completely against that project. It is just another corruption hole.. Economy is not good because of corruption.. Bridges built with debt, roads.. you need to pay usd prices.. giant hospitals and airports.. waste of money, no savings, corruption = money loses value, people get poorer, inflation rises. This will also destroy water reserves for İstanbul and won't generate any income rather than real estate sales which is basically unsustainable.. I better invest in technology industry and agriculture.

If Turkey plans to terminate Montreux, then no need for canal, if not Çanakkale is also part of Montreux than no reason to waste money. But Mr. President is stubborn if says it will be done he will destroy the country but do not step back.. like he did not for a park or interest rates

 

[Nutuk]

What I personally fear (aside the environmental damage, several lakes will be salt water contaminated and Istanbul has already a huge water scarcity problem) this canal will be build by foreign investors who will demand (like with the bridges) a certain amount of ship traffic. All ships that do not pass the canal to be paid by the state (just like in case with certain bridges and highways). It will form a huge black hole in the state budget and that will serve whom?

I am all in for good projects that would benefit Turkey and generate money, but somehow this project will most likely be a black hole of money pit to which Turkey will be tied for at least 5-6 decades.

Can anyone bring up some convincing argument that this canal project would be good for Turkey (how?)

 

[Zafer]

What I personally fear (aside the environmental damage, several lakes will be salt water contaminated and Istanbul has already a huge water scarcity problem) this canal will be build by foreign investors who will demand (like with the bridges) a certain amount of ship traffic. All ships that do not pass the canal to be paid by the state (just like in case with certain bridges and highways). It will form a huge black hole in the state budget and that will serve whom?

I am all in for good projects that would benefit Turkey and generate money, but somehow this project will most likely be a black hole of money pit to which Turkey will be tied for at least 5-6 decades.

Can anyone bring up some convincing argument that this canal project would be good for Turkey (how?)

One can think of many ways Canal Istanbul will bring benefits when he sees it in a positive light.
I will just summarize it in one short sentence "It will bring new livelihood to Turkey".
We have a saying in Turkish that goes like "Nerede hareket orada bereket" that means a lot.

 

[Fuzuli NL]

@Huelague
Please change the title of the thread to its original.

 

[Ryder]

Literally clickbait!!!

 

[Nutuk]

One can think of many ways Canal Istanbul will bring benefits when he sees it in a positive light.
I will just summarize it in one short sentence "It will bring new livelihood to Turkey".
We have a saying in Turkish that goes like "Nerede hareket orada bereket" that means a lot.

That is also said when building the bridges and highways. Yet there is a reality, no any foreign investor invest money without "guarantees". They will only come and invest when the state takes away risk and guarantees (like with the bridges and highways) a minimum amount of passages and that the difference is to be paid by the state.

Each year we have to pay huge amounts of money to these investors for the bridges, what will be different for the canal? Secondly if they cannot change the Montreux than the straits will remain free passage and the canal will be (in my opinion) nothing but an ultra expensive joke.


Alternative: Suppose Turkey does change the Montreux and changes the "free passage" of the straits into a "paid passage" than again why would we need the canal? I am all for changing the Montreux and demand a passage fee that will aid the Turkish income.

 

[Ryder]

That is also said when building the bridges and highways. Yet there is a reality, no any foreign investor invest money without "guarantees". They will only come and invest when the state takes away risk and guarantees (like with the bridges and highways) a minimum amount of passages and that the difference is to be paid by the state.

Each year we have to pay huge amounts of money to these investors for the bridges, what will be different for the canal? Secondly if they cannot change the Montreux than the straits will remain free passage and the canal will be (in my opinion) nothing but an ultra expensive joke.


Alternative: Suppose Turkey does change the Montreux and changes the "free passage" of the straits into a "paid passage" than again why would we need the canal? I am all for changing the Montreux and demand a passage fee that will aid the Turkish income.

Im really leaning on charging for the straits rather than building a canal.

 

[Anmdt]

That is also said when building the bridges and highways. Yet there is a reality, no any foreign investor invest money without "guarantees". They will only come and invest when the state takes away risk and guarantees (like with the bridges and highways) a minimum amount of passages and that the difference is to be paid by the state.

Each year we have to pay huge amounts of money to these investors for the bridges, what will be different for the canal? Secondly if they cannot change the Montreux than the straits will remain free passage and the canal will be (in my opinion) nothing but an ultra expensive joke.


Alternative: Suppose Turkey does change the Montreux and changes the "free passage" of the straits into a "paid passage" than again why would we need the canal? I am all for changing the Montreux and demand a passage fee that will aid the Turkish income.

People usually oversees and forgets, if Turkey is not a part of Montreux then will be forced to be a party of UNCLOS which will allow ships to pass freely.
I think there is a charge and tax for the passage but it needs to be updated.

Also montreux leaves pilotage and tug services optional, this should be compulsory for ships above a tonnage and length.

Also i think Turkey has right to request certain emission levels from ships with rights granted by IMO, it is done by some countries in some regions (called NEZ, no emission zone), ships have to use low sulphur fuel (despite of UNCLOS, this can be enforced), they will either need to update the montreux or Turkey will enforce it indirectly by making marmara sea, or aegean sea a no-emission zone and require any passing ship to run on low emission fuel.

 

[Zafer]

That is also said when building the bridges and highways. Yet there is a reality, no any foreign investor invest money without "guarantees". They will only come and invest when the state takes away risk and guarantees (like with the bridges and highways) a minimum amount of passages and that the difference is to be paid by the state.

Each year we have to pay huge amounts of money to these investors for the bridges, what will be different for the canal? Secondly if they cannot change the Montreux than the straits will remain free passage and the canal will be (in my opinion) nothing but an ultra expensive joke.


Alternative: Suppose Turkey does change the Montreux and changes the "free passage" of the straits into a "paid passage" than again why would we need the canal? I am all for changing the Montreux and demand a passage fee that will aid the Turkish income.

You can't cause a big queue of ships because you want to regulate and charge for passage even when you change the Montreux Convention. You need to create enough capacity for ships to pass through without causing bottlenecks. Given the impending huge cruise ship business coming to Istanbul with Galata Port there will be additional blockage of maneuvering ships which can decrease the passage capacity of Bosphorus.

As you can see from the Suez Canal incident that a ship can be made to block a Canal at critical times causing the system to fail with many consequences. Another Canal passing through Israel territory is being proposed to enable "continuous traffic". You probably remember Independenta incident as well. Bosphorus with its fast moving waters is passage that is inherently unsafe for shipping and for the city hosting it. Status-quo can not enforce even pilotage for passage.

This is a bet on the bright future of Turkey; those who bet Turkey will be wealthier want the canal, those who bet otherwise stand against it. Turkey will not settle with a single lane passage to wealth.

 

[Nutuk]

You can't cause a big queue of ships because you want to regulate and charge for passage even when you change the Montreux Convention. You need to create enough capacity for ships to pass through without causing bottlenecks. Given the impending huge cruise ship business coming to Istanbul with Galata Port there will be additional blockage of maneuvering ships which can decrease the passage capacity of Bosphorus.

As you can see from the Suez Canal incident that a ship can be made to block a Canal at critical times causing the system to fail with many consequences. Another Canal passing through Israel territory is being proposed to enable "continuous traffic". You probably remember Independenta incident as well. Bosphorus with its fast moving waters is passage that is inherently unsafe for shipping and for the city hosting it. Status-quo can not enforce even pilotage for passage.

This is a bet on the bright future of Turkey; those who bet Turkey will be wealthier want the canal, those who bet otherwise stand against it. Turkey will not settle with a single lane passage to wealth.

Why would charging cause a que? Payments go automatically by bank transfers, all ships who want a passage transfer beforehand the fee, it is not like a gate where cars stop and pay cash. I think this argument is invalid.

2) continues traffic, yes that is a positive thing but why would it be Turkish responsibility whether Romanian, Bulgarian or Russian ships gain one or two hours? Especially when Turkey has to pay for it? Case is that these kind of investments are always done with state guarantee and state pays for the difference if minimum amount of passages are not met.

If Romania, Bulgaria and Russia are so willing to have fast traffic, let them pay for it, let these countries bring up the investment money and carry the risks.

But we all know this will never happen, it will be Turkey carrying the risk, Turkey paying the passage difference a huge burden put on the shoulders of Turkish tax payers. I ask it again for what? To appease Bulgarian, Romanians, Russians whome ships will say "thank you Turkiye"?


I have seen no any viable plan that has calculated that the canal project is profitable (like you say "a bet on a bright future", but bets tend to get wrong (examples, bridges, highways that continuously chip away Turkish taxpayers money).

Investing in Istanbul airport is a different think, there our own national airways company (THY) is benefitting. Airways is a strategic thing that benefits Turkey even if there are costs. But a canal, what benefit is there in for Turkey? As I see only burdens: damaging environment, reserving a good amount of soil for a canal, contineously paying for a guaranteed amount of passages.

It is not like the Suez canal (ironically Turks paid for that one too) that has no alternative (like the Bosphorus free of charge)


Probably I am the dumbest person in Turkey, my IQ is not enough to see the gain.

 

[Zafer]

Why would charging cause a que? Payments go automatically by bank transfers, all ships who want a passage transfer beforehand the fee, it is not like a gate where cars stop and pay cash. I think this argument is invalid.

2) continues traffic, yes that is a positive thing but why would it be Turkish responsibility whether Romanian, Bulgarian or Russian ships gain one or two hours? Especially when Turkey has to pay for it? Case is that these kind of investments are always done with state guarantee and state pays for the difference if minimum amount of passages are not met.

If Romania, Bulgaria and Russia are so willing to have fast traffic, let them pay for it, let these countries bring up the investment money and carry the risks.

But we all know this will never happen, it will be Turkey carrying the risk, Turkey paying the passage difference a huge burden put on the shoulders of Turkish tax payers. I ask it again for what? To appease Bulgarian, Romanians, Russians whome ships will say "thank you Turkiye"?


I have seen no any viable plan that has calculated that the canal project is profitable (like you say "a bet on a bright future", but bets tend to get wrong (examples, bridges, highways that continuously chip away Turkish taxpayers money).

Investing in Istanbul airport is a different think, there our own national airways company (THY) is benefitting. Airways is a strategic thing that benefits Turkey even if there are costs. But a canal, what benefit is there in for Turkey? As I see only burdens: damaging environment, reserving a good amount of soil for a canal, contineously paying for a guaranteed amount of passages.

It is not like the Suez canal (ironically Turks paid for that one too) that has no alternative (like the Bosphorus free of charge)


Probably I am the dumbest person in Turkey, my IQ is not enough to see the gain.

Cruise ships are neither Romanian nor Bulgarian or Russian. Currently there are very few cruise ships going into the Black See as they have to be on schedule at all times and the demand is not much for the Black Sea. But the future will change this. Probably some cruise companies will make Istanbul their home port where guests board the ship for the cruise.

Our government leaves very little profit margin to contractors.

 

[Nutuk]

Again assumptions, no calculations. Just betting that things go 100% favorable.

And yeah forgive me if I do not have the highest expectation of our government leaving very little profit margin to contractors (who guarantee their investments with minimum passage clauses, that makes Turkey pay every year again and again (bridges, highways) and governments do not carry responsibilities. Government A goes, government B comes but the state guarantee stays.

 

[uzaysan]

İ will tell you what will happen. Our great 5 yerli ve milli vampires are thirsty and they need to suck our blood. Akp will give canal project to this companies with Yap- İşlet-Devret. And of course with passage guarantee with either euro or usd. Because our yerli ve milli companies and yerli ve milli government doesn't like yerli ve milli money. This companies will go to our yerli ve milli state banks like ziraat bankası(which supposed to help farmers but instead they support great 5). They will take loan with very low interest and super long payment time. They will start construction but our helpfully government will donate money to them from state budget because kanal cost rised significantly. They will finish construction and will get paid next 100 years by guarantee.

 

[Zafer]

Again assumptions, no calculations. Just betting that things go 100% favorable.

And yeah forgive me if I do not have the highest expectation of our government leaving very little profit margin to contractors (who guarantee their investments with minimum passage clauses, that makes Turkey pay every year again and again (bridges, highways) and governments do not carry responsibilities. Government A goes, government B comes but the state guarantee stays.

Can you calculate everything, like a plague hitting pandemic levels or polar regions opens for ship traffic or a Canal parallel to Suez Canal to open. No, you can not calculate them. There is a certain level of risk to every plan. No pain no gain. Risk and profit are siblings, they are destined together. Government A stays in power and plans things for the best outcome, which is what has happened in the past 19 years.

 

[Nutuk]

Can you calculate everything, like a plague hitting pandemic levels or polar regions opens for ship traffic or a Canal parallel to Suez Canal to open. No, you can not calculate them. There is a certain level of risk to every plan. No pain no gain. Risk and profit are siblings, they are destined together. Government A stays in power and plans things for the best outcome, which is what has happened in the past 19 years.

No you cannot calculate everything, if I knew the world will end in 5 months I would quit my job, take a huge bank loan and live the rest of my days like a king.

We cannot calculate everything but we have to calculate the basics, did you see any calculation I am not aware of?


What we currently have in Turkey is partisanship, a part of the people who are pro party A are fully for the canal project (because they feel it as a loyal act to their paryt) and there is a group that is anti any thing that Party A does (because they want to oppose every thing of party A).


I do not want that BS, think as if there are no parties, think only in the benefit of the state (parties come and go) but our state is there for ever (hopefully).

If you do a long term investment with long term commitments, these things cannot be left to "betting on", it has to have a very sound base of calculating the long term benefits and burdens, it's a legacy that we leave to our children. Would you like to leave only burdens to your children or do you want to leave them benefits? Leave away all the partizan BS, think as the Turkish state.

We have a huge investment like the GAP project to build a lot of dams, that brings water to arable lands. A long term project that has benefits next to the burdens. But is based on benefiting Turkey.

Let me make my question more to the point: What benefit will Turkey have from such a canal project? That there will be burdens is a guaranteed issue, I ask the benefit!

 

[Zafer]

No you cannot calculate everything, if I knew the world will end in 5 months I would quit my job, take a huge bank loan and live the rest of my days like a king.

We cannot calculate everything but we have to calculate the basics, did you see any calculation I am not aware of?


What we currently have in Turkey is partisanship, a part of the people who are pro party A are fully for the canal project (because they feel it as a loyal act to their paryt) and there is a group that is anti any thing that Party A does (because they want to oppose every thing of party A).


I do not want that BS, think as if there are no parties, think only in the benefit of the state (parties come and go) but our state is there for ever (hopefully).

If you do a long term investment with long term commitments, these things cannot be left to "betting on", it has to have a very sound base of calculating the long term benefits and burdens, it's a legacy that we leave to our children. Would you like to leave only burdens to your children or do you want to leave them benefits? Leave away all the partizan BS, think as the Turkish state.

We have a huge investment like the GAP project to build a lot of dams, that brings water to arable lands. A long term project that has benefits next to the burdens. But is based on benefiting Turkey.

Let me make my question more to the point: What benefit will Turkey have from such a canal project? That there will be burdens is a guaranteed issue, I ask the benefit!

I don't have all that time and resources to list out all the benefits for you but you can do it yourself putting yourself in the shoes of the other side. There must be a reason why a government takes the hard path to do work instead of putting their legs up and sitting down and watching the world as someone else have their way with everything that touches humanity. We have many natural resources in our country and an easy way to make another precious Bosphorus is one of them.

 

[Anmdt]

Cruise ships are neither Romanian nor Bulgarian or Russian. Currently there are very few cruise ships going into the Black See as they have to be on schedule at all times and the demand is not much for the Black Sea. But the future will change this. Probably some cruise companies will make Istanbul their home port where guests board the ship for the cruise.

Our government leaves very little profit margin to contractors.

Cruise ships would prefer to pass from bosphorous, not from a man-made channel. Wait a moment, what will happen to Galata-port again another devastating cruise ship pier project by Government, how do you plan to advertise culture and tourism if those cruise ships are not passing from bosphorous and stopping by Galataport.
Be rational and consistent please.

Can you calculate everything, like a plague hitting pandemic levels or polar regions opens for ship traffic or a Canal parallel to Suez Canal to open. No, you can not calculate them. There is a certain level of risk to every plan. No pain no gain. Risk and profit are siblings, they are destined together. Government A stays in power and plans things for the best outcome, which is what has happened in the past 19 years.

Suez canal and Canal istanbul is different, one doesn't have an alternative natural route, while another doesn't have any other alternative route than itself.
Is there any foreseeable bloom in shipping traffic between Black-sea countries and others? Not much, the shipping traffic blooms between china-EU-US which doesn't have a proper and safe land connection. Trains are the future, yet again neglected.

How much does it make sense to gamble with 50 billion USD? I bet you can not risk your 50 lira, while for this you think it is rational to risk 50 billion dollars.

Yet we are not still discussing about natural affects which will cause in loss of marine ecosystem in marmara, tubitak, years ago did a study for this and showed it via simulations, it was the government who has requested this study, later they have classified and mummified the project to be not seen by anybody else.
Another affects: Istanbul is already a dense city, this canal and sibling towns will create another flow of multi millions of people, a worse infrastructure, bottlenecks while accessing from asia to europe, troubles on rail-ways and for everything to pass a new bridge will be needed.