Proposed cost increase to transit Panama Canal

[Paul L]

Originally Posted by Brewgyver

The part you bolded was a conditional statement, note the word "IF"

And given that the aim of the new locks is to greatly increase the number and size of ships that can and will use the canal, it's a pretty safe bet that that increased traffic, and the additional locks, are a bigger factor on the fresh water consumption than the occasional drought.

Exactly, it is an If statement that you know to be false in real life and use to bloster your argument

[mat jam]

[QUOTE=belizesailor;2915211]Let me guess, the finacials posted by the Panama Canal Authority are just part of a massive misinformation scheme?[/QTE]

It is safe to assume most companies/corps are fudging their books with creating accounting. Why do you think the US is postering like a gangster asking for tributes?

The increase in traffic currently is from trying to hoard supplies for the inevitable shock that is around the corner.

[Tillsbury]

I think I might need to stock up on tinfoil...

[belizesailor]

Originally Posted by mat jam

It is safe to assume most companies/corps are fudging their books with creating accounting. Why do you think the US is postering like a gangster asking for tributes?

The increase in traffic currently is from trying to hoard supplies for the inevitable shock that is around the corner.

Which will come in October right? Why is it always October?

[belizesailor]

Originally Posted by Montanan

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.

Who knows what the future holds, but the extreme tidal variances between the two coasts are present day reality.

[belizesailor]

Originally Posted by ahun

Money making exercise? All the transiting yachts put together (there is a reliable statistic, about 800) make hardly as much money for the canal as two big ships do. Some of those pay half a million in US dollars, with not much more trouble caused.
Not that I am pro increase, just sayin'

I suspect its more to defray the cost associated with dealing with smaller vessels. There was talk a few years back of the Canal Authority banning yachts all together because they were more hassle than they were worth.

[belizesailor]

Originally Posted by AiniA

My experience with the PC was overwhelmingly positive. We ended up only paying the $800, it would have been $3000 if we were 18" longer. I wonder what the 50'+ fee will be with this proposal. They could have made it less bureaucratic (but provided fewer jobs) by eliminating the admeasuref and even the advisors. I have done the St Lawrence Seaway and Welland Canal locks which are almost as big and more numerous and you do not use or need an advisor. Both of our advisors were hours late. The first day's guy was helpful, the second day guy asked how the first day went. When we said it was fine he settled in with his newspapers and pretty much ignored us. Because he and his colleagues on the other two boats were so late we missed our freighter. The advisor has us motor sailing to catch up but that did not work. We did the last three locks with just the three sailboats.

Mine too. Ive transitted several times. The Advisors can be a mixed bag, but the overall canal operation is very professional.

[belizesailor]

[QUOTE=mat jam;2915431]

Originally Posted by belizesailor

Let me guess, the finacials posted by the Panama Canal Authority are just part of a massive misinformation scheme?[/QTE]



It is safe to assume most companies/corps are fudging their books with creating accounting. Why do you think the US is postering like a gangster asking for tributes?



The increase in traffic currently is from trying to hoard supplies for the inevitable shock that is around the corner.

The current state of the USA concerns me (esp since I still have substantial assets there), but I live in Panama and the economy here is booming. The Canal is a major contributing factor, but other sectors are doing well too. The middle class is expanding dramatically (as oppossed to the USA where it seems under attack by the government).

Extensive new construction all over Panama of middle class homes, commercial properties, and infrastructure.

My concerns about the Panamanian economy are whether the gov can really afford the massive investments in infrastructure (canal expansion, metro train in PC, loads of hyro electric projects, renovation of the full length of the PanAmerican Hwy inside Panama...). Their published economic numbers look great, but how valid they are I dont know. And of course corruption: an endemic problem in all of Central America.

However, pulling off the appearance of a booming economy in Panama would require billions in capital and massive collusion across public and private sectors. Panama could certainly not pull that off on its own. Maybe the illusion is imporant enough to the Illuminati to fund it? [emoji849]

[mat jam]

[QUOTE=belizesailor;2915463]

Originally Posted by mat jam

The current state of the USA concerns me (esp since I still have substantial assets there), but I live in Panama and the economy here is booming. The Canal is a major contributing factor, but other sectors are doing well too. The middle class is expanding dramatically (as oppossed to the USA where it seems under attack by the government).

Extensive new construction all over Panama of middle class homes, commercial properties, and infrastructure.

My concerns about the Panamanian economy are whether the gov can really afford the massive investments in infrastructure (canal expansion, metro train in PC, loads of hyro electric projects, renovation of the full length of the PanAmerican Hwy inside Panama...). Their published economic numbers look great, but how valid they are I dont know. And of course corruption: an endemic problem in all of Central America.

However, pulling off the appearance of a booming economy in Panama would require billions in capital and massive collusion across public and private sectors. Panama could certainly not pull that off on its own. Maybe the illusion is imporant enough to the Illuminati to fund it? [emoji849]

I do not have the time to respond properly - intransit but to be fair to you I will add check Deagel countries forecast. Many have speculated about it but from someone who used to be a director in a large firm before retiring as a prof and many friends/contacts in high levels of finance, banking, biz, etc. If you read the blurb at the bottom it is well written and fairly accurate. Assume what you want. Up to you

[belizesailor]

Oh yeah...taking as fact postings on a very suspect web site and siting unspecified sources....Im familiar w that mode of thinking...I have few conspiracy theorist aquaintances...always long on conspiracy theories and short on verifiable facts.

[GordMay]

[QUOTE=mat jam;2915477]

Originally Posted by belizesailor

I do not have the time to respond properly - intransit but to be fair to you I will add check Deagel countries forecast. Many have speculated about it but from someone who used to be a director in a large firm before retiring as a prof and many friends/contacts in high levels of finance, banking, biz, etc. If you read the blurb at the bottom it is well written and fairly accurate. Assume what you want. Up to you

You've got to be kidding! An anonymous internet seer, using publicly available - but undisclosed information, is your source?

From deagel.com
“... We assume that the official data, especially economic, released by governments is fake, cooked or distorted in some degree ...”

[belizesailor]

[QUOTE=GordMay;2915489]

Originally Posted by mat jam

You've got to be kidding! An anonymous internet seer, using publicly available - but undisclosed information, is your source?

From deagel.com
“... We assume that the official data, especially economic, released by governments is fake, cooked or distorted in some degree ...”

Just to clarify since the original post got scrambled and thus in a quote looks like it came from me: it did not, it was matjam's.

These types of sites are the favorites of conspiracy theorists and such, they often believe them fervently. Ive known a few who made major life decisions based on the postings on such sites...only to be left in a bad situation when it did not come to pass. Predicting the future is still beyond the relm of human ability.

[GordMay]

[QUOTE=belizesailor;2915521]

Originally Posted by GordMay

Just to clarify since the original post got scrambled and thus in a quote looks like it came from me: it did not, it was matjam's.
These types of sites are the favorites of conspiracy theorists and such, they often believe them fervently.

Sorry, for that confusion. Don't know how I let that miss-attribution slip past.

[redneckrob]

Originally Posted by Brewgyver

The new locks are larger in all three dimensions, including depth, to accommodate deeper draft vessels, not just longer and wider. The new locks are almost 50% deeper. So, even though the elevation gain remains the same, and not 100% of the lock's volume is lost in the cycle, I suspect that my claim is accurate.

I think some basic math/physics may be escaping here. Both the new locks and the old locks have to go up/down 85'. The amount of water necessary to lift/lower a ship 85' is 85XwidthXlength of the lock. It matters not a whit how deep the lock ultimately is!

[Brewgyver]

[QUOTE=GordMay;2915523]

Originally Posted by belizesailor

Sorry, for that confusion. Don't know how I let that miss-attribution slip past.

Wow, that last one was even weirder.
The "Quote" function usually works well, and automatically omits any quoted content within the post that the function is used on.