Proposed cost increase to transit Panama Canal

[Brewgyver]

Originally Posted by DeepFrz

Brewgyver, thanks very much for your well researched input. Perhaps this NY Times article from May, 2019 will be of interest.

Excerpt from the article " A severe drought in Panama has resulted in lower water levels in the Panama Canal, forcing some shippers to limit the amount of cargo their largest ships carry so they can safely navigate the waterway.".

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/17/c...ama-canal.html

Did you read the whole article? Like the part about the other end of the rainfall spectrum, in the same decade, with the lakes overflowing from too much rain? That's why these matters are looked at using averages over longer periods of time. Also, it was pointed out that the drought was mainly affecting the expansion locks, where there are no smaller boats at all, and this thread is about those smaller boats.

[Paul L]

Originally Posted by Brewgyver

Did you read the whole article? Like the part about the other end of the rainfall spectrum, in the same decade, with the lakes overflowing from too much rain? That's why these matters are looked at using averages over longer periods of time. Also, it was pointed out that the drought was mainly affecting the expansion locks, where there are no smaller boats at all, and this thread is about those smaller boats.

The new locks recycle 60% of the water used from Lake Gatun, the reservior that feeds the locks and supplies Panama Citys water. The old locks dump 100% of the fresh water into the ocean.

[nwdiver]

No problem, the alternative is the Horn........have you seen Cabo Horno? I have......take the PC......

[nwdiver]

If the Red Sea was safe people would be applauding the cheap price of the Panama Canal ...take the Suez C sometime......

[nortonscove]

My thinking tends more toward the business interests in the canal. I think the controller of the facility has vastly more invested in moving large ships with minimal more effort than the small cruiser and therefore has taken the steps to minimize that inconvenience and to increase profit and really there's damned little anyone can do about it or should think it their place to do. Otherwise any other business owners on here should expect input into running their business.

[belizesailor]

Originally Posted by moctrams

I thought the water goes into a holding pond for the net cycle.

Only on the new locks which are not used for small vessels.

[belizesailor]

Originally Posted by waterman46

I have always thought it was just plain stupid to give away that valuable asset which was built with our father's money. If it was still in US control, we small boat users might have a chance to appeal and get lower rates. Good Luck with asking Panama to base fees on actual cost to float our little chips of wood and glass through their big canal.

You're right, you should never return stolen property.

[Montanan]

Originally Posted by nortonscove

My thinking tends more toward the business interests in the canal. I think the controller of the facility has vastly more invested in moving large ships with minimal more effort than the small cruiser and therefore has taken the steps to minimize that inconvenience and to increase profit and really there's damned little anyone can do about it or should think it their place to do. Otherwise any other business owners on here should expect input into running their business.

Provided below in easy to grasp graphical format are the financial results for the Panama Canal Authority for 2017 as to revenues by category of ship / cargo and expense distribution and the contribution to the national treasury. The corporation is deriving a solid return on assets and equity and its credit rating is improving.

One will note that financially small vessels amount to almost nil contribution. To put things in perspective a single very large container ship will carry 14,000 + TEU Twenty foot equivalent unit container which at $72 per TEU will derive revenue of over $1 million, the base charge for the vessel being $3,000. Such container ship derives revenue to the corporation of the equivalent of 1,250 small vessels.

An $800 fee for a small vessel is a modest charge and even a doubling to $1,600 remains a modest charge for the ability to transit quickly and easily between oceans. The canal was not built to service the few wealthy recreational cruisers, it was built and has been expanded and improved for economic and strategic purposes.

[Montanan]

Originally Posted by waterman46

I have always thought it was just plain stupid to give away that valuable asset which was built with our father's money. If it was still in US control, we small boat users might have a chance to appeal and get lower rates. Good Luck with asking Panama to base fees on actual cost to float our little chips of wood and glass through their big canal.

They say, a picture is worth a thousand words, a historical political cartoon can sum up the dynamics of the imperialism of the USA during that time frame of the Spanish American war and the US support of the Panamanian rebels with the aim to separate from Grand Columbia. During those few years the USA gained sovereign control over the Philippines, Puerto Rico, Cuba, Guam and the Panama Canal zone.

From Wikipedia. A primer on the United States acquisition of the Panama Canal zone:

United States acquisition

The US's intentions to influence the area (especially the Panama Canal construction and control) led to the separation of Panama from Colombia in 1903.

The Culebra Cut, or Gaillard Cut, in 1896

The Culebra Cut in 1902
At this time, the President and the Senate of the United States were interested in establishing a canal across the isthmus, with some favoring a canal across Nicaragua and others advocating the purchase of the French interests in Panama. Bunau-Varilla, who was seeking American involvement, asked for $100 million, but accepted $40 million in the face of the Nicaraguan option. In June 1902, the US Senate voted in favor of the Spooner Act, to pursue the Panamanian option, provided the necessary rights could be obtained.

On January 22, 1903, the Hay–Herrán Treaty was signed by United States Secretary of State John M. Hay and Colombian Chargé Dr. Tomás Herrán. For $10 million and an annual payment, it would have granted the United States a renewable lease in perpetuity from Colombia on the land proposed for the canal. The treaty was ratified by the US Senate on March 14, 1903, but the Senate of Colombia did not ratify it. Bunau-Varilla told President Theodore Roosevelt and Hay of a possible revolt by Panamanian rebels who aimed to separate from Colombia, and hoped that the United States would support the rebels with US troops and money.

Roosevelt changed tactics, based in part on the Mallarino–Bidlack Treaty of 1846, and actively supported the separation of Panama from Colombia. Shortly after recognizing Panama, he signed a treaty with the new Panamanian government under terms similar to the Hay–Herrán Treaty.

On November 2, 1903, US warships blocked sea lanes against possible Colombian troop movements en route to put down the Panama rebellion. Panama declared independence on November 3, 1903. The United States quickly recognized the new nation. On November 6, 1903, Philippe Bunau-Varilla, as Panama's ambassador to the United States, signed the Hay–Bunau-Varilla Treaty, granting rights to the United States to build and indefinitely administer the Panama Canal Zone and its defenses. This is sometimes misinterpreted as the "99-year lease" because of misleading wording included in article 22 of the agreement. Almost immediately, the treaty was condemned by many Panamanians as an infringement on their country's new national sovereignty. This would later become a contentious diplomatic issue among Colombia, Panama, and the United States.

Side note: The 99 years pertain to any reversionary rights that Panama MAY have had to any of the property of the prior canal company or of Article XV of the concessionary contract with Lucien N. B. Wyse, and debatedly not as to the determining term of lease to the USA.

President Roosevelt famously stated, "I took the Isthmus, started the canal and then left Congress not to debate the canal, but to debate me." Several parties in the United States called this an act of war on Colombia: The New York Times described the support given by the United States to Bunau-Varilla as an "act of sordid conquest." The New York Evening Post called it a "vulgar and mercenary venture." The US maneuvers are often cited as the classic example of US gunboat diplomacy in Latin America, and the best illustration of what Roosevelt meant by the old African adage, "Speak softly and carry a big stick [and] you will go far." After the revolution in 1903, the Republic of Panama became a US protectorate until 1939.

In 1904, the United States purchased the French equipment and excavations, including the Panama Railroad, for US$40 million, of which $30 million related to excavations completed, primarily in the Gaillard Cut (then called the Culebra Cut), valued at about $1.00 per cubic yard. The United States also paid the new country of Panama $10 million and a $250,000 payment each following year.

In 1921, Colombia and the United States entered into the Thomson–Urrutia Treaty, in which the United States agreed to pay Colombia $25 million: $5 million upon ratification, and four-$5 million annual payments, and grant Colombia special privileges in the Canal Zone. In return, Colombia recognized Panama as an independent nation.

[belizesailor]

That cartoon is a good graphically summary of the diplomatic shell game put over on Colombia/Panama. Both Bunau-Varilla & Roosevelt were quite open about having essentially stolen the Canal Zone.

For more detail on that bit of intrigue see "I Took Panama":

https://www.amazon.com/Took-Panama-S.../dp/B009HIIVLQ

[Brewgyver]

Originally Posted by Paul L

The new locks recycle 60% of the water used from Lake Gatun, the reservior that feeds the locks and supplies Panama Citys water. The old locks dump 100% of the fresh water into the ocean.

And well they should, as they're new, not designed 120ish years ago. But 40% of the volume of the new locks is MORE THAN 100% of the old locks! So, if they had the same number of cycles, the canal would now be dumping more than twice as much fresh water as it used to. Of course, this doesn't account for displacement variables.

Ever since I was a kid, I wondered how the canal could operate on 100% gravity-fed fresh water, it was astounding. The truth is, it couldn't, on an unlimited basis, in any given few years, with the rainfall variable. The canal had water shortages back in the 1930's, barely 20 years into operation, that required the construction of another dam to create an additional reservoir.

[Montanan]

Originally Posted by Brewgyver

And well they should, as they're new, not designed 120ish years ago. But 40% of the volume of the new locks is MORE THAN 100% of the old locks! So, if they had the same number of cycles, the canal would now be dumping more than twice as much fresh water as it used to. Of course, this doesn't account for displacement variables.

Ever since I was a kid, I wondered how the canal could operate on 100% gravity-fed fresh water, it was astounding. The truth is, it couldn't, on an unlimited basis, in any given few years, with the rainfall variable. The canal had water shortages back in the 1930's, barely 20 years into operation, that required the construction of another dam to create an additional reservoir.

Well if sea levels rise they won't need so much water to raise or lower at the locks where the canal meets the oceans. Just saying.

[captlloyd]

Originally Posted by Montanan

Well if sea levels rise they won't need so much water to raise or lower at the locks where the canal meets the oceans. Just saying.

Yeah, eventually we may need no water at all.

[belizesailor]

Originally Posted by Montanan

Well if sea levels rise they won't need so much water to raise or lower at the locks where the canal meets the oceans. Just saying.

Well...there is still that extreme tidal variance between the N & S sides of Panama.

[Montanan]

Originally Posted by belizesailor

Well...there is still that extreme tidal variance between the N & S sides of Panama.

And they likely will need to charge more for transiting the Panama Canal when it freezes in winter because they will have to operate icebreakers to clear a channel for the recreational boaters.

But then imagine how much you can save not needing to operate the ice maker or the AC.