6 ms·

A Suez Canal rival through Israel

23 points by fumblebee 6y ago

maratc 6y ago
I'm not sure what kind of alternative reality the author is living in. As a matter of fact, there already is an existing "Suez Canal rival through Israel", albeit for oil and oil products only - the Trans-Israel Pipeline[0]. It can pump oil between a port on the Red Sea and another one on Mediterranean. Predictably, no one is using that. The situation where lots of oil tankers go through Suez in opposing directions each day is clearly suboptimal anyway. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trans-Israel_pipeline https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trans-Israel_pipeline
- bobthepanda 6y ago
  I mean, no one is using it because working with Israel has been a political third rail for decades in most countries that might otherwise be interested. From the article it sounds like the thaw with the UAE might result in them sending their oil through it.
  - TimTheTinker 6y ago
    Looks like it'll be piping UAE oil pretty soon. This deal was signed in September 2020: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-emirates-israel-pipeline/israeli-pipeline-company-signs-deal-to-bring-uae-oil-to-europe-idUSKBN275155 https://www.reuters.com/article/us-emirates-israel-pipeline/...
  - maratc 6y ago
    All it takes is one sea to sea missile (maybe of Iranian origin but not necessarily so) into a ship that just passed that $80B canal, for the other ships to stop using it and $80B go to waste.
    - bobthepanda 6y ago
      You could say the same exact thing about the Suez, and yet it's this vital link everyone is using. Egypt is no bastion of neutrality.
      - maratc 6y ago
        You are right but still there are no countries that go as far as to deny Egypt's right to exist as a state. Also Suez Canal is not a new invention and everyone is already using that, as the alternatives are worse. This would not be the case with that hypothetical Israeli channel, as it would be brand-new, and the alternatives (Suez Canal) would be better.
igor47 6y ago
> its construction could cost $55b. dollars and it would pay for itself in 10 years ... it could do some of the things the Suez can’t, like support oil tankers that exceed the Suez’s depth and width. yup. lets spend $55b + the time it takes to actually do the construction + wait another 10 years, and then it will pay for itself by moving oil tankers. climate change: someone else's problem.
gruez 6y ago
>Matching Suez traffic doesn’t mean stealing Egypt’s business: the Suez Canal is only one lane wide, and can handle fewer than 50 ships a day. A trans-Israel canal would be a valuable supplement, and it could do some of the things the Suez can’t, like support oil tankers that exceed the Suez’s depth and width. But what if egypt expands their canal as well? What would be the advantage in using israel's canal? The israel canal would be longer than the suez canal, so it would be at a disadvantage from a customer (ie. the ships) and investor (because of increased capital requirements) point of view.
sunstone 6y ago
The terrain looks challenging.

23 points by fumblebee 6y ago

I'm not sure what kind of alternative reality the author is living in. As a matter of fact, there already is an existing "Suez Canal rival through Israel", albeit for oil and oil products only - the Trans-Israel Pipeline[0]. It can pump oil between a port on the Red Sea and another one on Mediterranean. Predictably, no one is using that. The situation where lots of oil tankers go through Suez in opposing directions each day is clearly suboptimal anyway. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trans-Israel_pipeline https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trans-Israel_pipeline

bobthepanda 6y ago
I mean, no one is using it because working with Israel has been a political third rail for decades in most countries that might otherwise be interested. From the article it sounds like the thaw with the UAE might result in them sending their oil through it.
- TimTheTinker 6y ago
  Looks like it'll be piping UAE oil pretty soon. This deal was signed in September 2020: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-emirates-israel-pipeline/israeli-pipeline-company-signs-deal-to-bring-uae-oil-to-europe-idUSKBN275155 https://www.reuters.com/article/us-emirates-israel-pipeline/...
- maratc 6y ago
  All it takes is one sea to sea missile (maybe of Iranian origin but not necessarily so) into a ship that just passed that $80B canal, for the other ships to stop using it and $80B go to waste.
  - bobthepanda 6y ago
    You could say the same exact thing about the Suez, and yet it's this vital link everyone is using. Egypt is no bastion of neutrality.
    - maratc 6y ago
      You are right but still there are no countries that go as far as to deny Egypt's right to exist as a state. Also Suez Canal is not a new invention and everyone is already using that, as the alternatives are worse. This would not be the case with that hypothetical Israeli channel, as it would be brand-new, and the alternatives (Suez Canal) would be better.

igor47 6y ago

> its construction could cost $55b. dollars and it would pay for itself in 10 years ... it could do some of the things the Suez can’t, like support oil tankers that exceed the Suez’s depth and width. yup. lets spend $55b + the time it takes to actually do the construction + wait another 10 years, and then it will pay for itself by moving oil tankers. climate change: someone else's problem.

gruez 6y ago

>Matching Suez traffic doesn’t mean stealing Egypt’s business: the Suez Canal is only one lane wide, and can handle fewer than 50 ships a day. A trans-Israel canal would be a valuable supplement, and it could do some of the things the Suez can’t, like support oil tankers that exceed the Suez’s depth and width. But what if egypt expands their canal as well? What would be the advantage in using israel's canal? The israel canal would be longer than the suez canal, so it would be at a disadvantage from a customer (ie. the ships) and investor (because of increased capital requirements) point of view.

sunstone 6y ago

The terrain looks challenging.