Pakistan approves Gwadar port transfer to China

[darkinsky]

Is Karachi Gawadar highway a Motorway.

its a coastal highway

 

[Machoman]

you are an american, start behaving like one and stop talking on behalf of punjabis and all non sense coming out of your mouth, baloch are as much pakistanis as punjabis are

stop your regional bias right here

Dude what is wrong with you man.....telling everyone that you are not ****, you are this and that......so are you the only true Pakistani in this forum......?

 

[Kiss_of_the_Dragon]

Hey beijingwalker, what is your views about this article.

Gabe Collins and Andrew Erickson, “Still a Pipedream: A Pakistan-to-China rail corridor is not a substitute for maritime transport ,” China SignPost™ (洞察中&#22269, No. 13 (22 December 2010).

China SignPost™ 洞察中国–“Clear, high-impact China analysis.”©

The recent flurry of trade deals and MOUs (worth US$35 billion) signed during Premier Wen Jiabao’s recent visit to Pakistan have brought the possibility of a more robust Pakistan-to-China transport corridor back into the spotlight. The trade deals stand to drive increased economic activity by Chinese companies in Pakistan in coming years.

However, our assessment is that while the trade and investment agreements may help cement an “all weather” alliance between Beijing and Islamabad, they do not mean that an all weather transport corridor becomes viable. An expanded road and rail network linking Pakistan to China faces three key challenges. The bottom line is that maritime shipping routes will remain a cheaper, simpler, and more secure option for moving crude oil and other goods into China.

1) Security. The proposed transport corridor would go through areas that are subject to flooding and insurgent activity, as well as avalanches, landslides, and seismic activity in the Karakoram Range. If any of these disruptive events materializes, rail and road traffic cannot re-route around the trouble point the way that ships at sea can.

2) Capacity. A modern one-track rail line in the United States can currently handle around 16 trains per day, according to Cambridge Systematics. A Pakistan-to China rail corridor would likely be built with one track each way, but with reduced throughput of around 12 trains per day. U.S. freight trains carried an average of 2,800 tonnes of cargo in 2004, according to the Bureau of Transportation Statistics. Trains transiting the Khunjerab Pass would likely carry smaller loads, perhaps 2,000 tonnes, due to the large vertical gradient. With these train frequency and load parameters, the corridor would be able to handle 8.75 million tonnes of cargo per year, or approximately 175,000 barrels of oil per day if all the trains carried oil.

To move the volumes that would be necessary to make this route able to handle enough cargo to reduce sea transport reliance measurably, there would need to be a rail setup with 3 or 4 lines. Furthermore, bringing that much cargo into Western China’s rail network and then having to move it into industrial areas in the central and eastern regions would likely necessitate additional capacity expansions of the national rail system. These investments would likely be cost-prohibitive.

3) High construction and transport costs. The tariffs needed to pay off the finance costs of the route and move freight over a 15,000 foot vertical relief would likely make the cost highly uncompetitive with sea routes. The roughly 2,000 km-long Qingzang railway to Lhasa, Tibet cost roughly US$4 billion to build (US$1.85 million per km). The cost per km to build a rail line connecting Islamabad and Kashgar could be several times more expensive to build given the tough geologic and political circumstances along the route.

In terms of transport costs, we estimate that moving a barrel of oil by sea to Shanghai at a ship rate of US$75,000 per day at 23 km per hour with a 2 million barrel cargo costs around US$0.90 per barrel, while moving it by barge upriver to the rapidly-growing inland demand center of Chongqing would cost an additional US$1.23 per barrel, for a total transport cost of US$2.22 per barrel (Exhibit 1). In contrast, moving oil from Ras al-Tanura to Gwadar and then by rail into the heartland of China would likely cost closer to US$8.00 to US$12.40 per barrel, making that route economically uncompetitive, as well as limited in capacity.[1] The disparity would be slightly greater for major cities on China’s east coast.

Exhibit 1: Estimated costs of moving oil to Chongqing, China from the Persian Gulf by sea and via Pakistan.

In short, there are compelling reasons why sea transport has been dominant for so long. To even build a Pakistan-to-China rail corridor would require massive upfront investments, would be economically uncompetitive relative to sea routes, and due to the many physical and political risks along the route, commercial shippers would likely be highly reluctant to use it.

Still a Pipedream: A Pakistan-to-China rail corridor is not a substitute for maritime transport | China SignPost

this article is just a joke: chose Chongqing as reference destination for argument such high cost, capacity and security is just epic fail...no idiot would want to do that.

1- Gwadar route is viable only for Kashgar and other nearby cities to develop western section of China,
2- For transport capacity issue ,Western sector is not well developped and not huge population to require a fully load transport capacity, so small capacity still fullfill Chinese nord western needs.
3- Export: as Beijingwalker mentioned, this route will serve also for export as well.
4-gateway to middile east for cultural exchange
5- enhance China-pakistan trade: cheers:
6 consolidate political alliance when dealing our common foes, when you have good communication line, it gave a good psycological support for each other
7-Facilitate the shipment of weapons to Pakistan or middle east
8-To compete with India for resource

The benefices outweight some small issues that the artical mentioned...I guess it's not hard to understand

 

[INDIC]

this article is just a joke: chose Chongqing as reference destination for argument such high cost, capacity and security is just epic fail...no idiot would want to do that.

1- Gwadar route is viable only for Kashgar and other nearby cities to develop western section of China,
2- For transport capacity issue ,Western sector is not well developped and not huge population to require a fully load transport capacity, so small capacity still fullfill Chinese nord western needs.
3- Export: as Beijingwalker mentioned, this route will serve also for export as well.
4-gate wate to middile east for cultural exchange
5- enhance China-pakistan trade: cheers:
6 consolidate political alliance when dealing our common foes
7-Facilitate the shipment of weapons or middle east
8-To compete with India for resource

The benefices outweight some small issues that the artical mentioned...I guess it's not hard to understand

But aren't you building a railway line to Afghanistan via Tajikistan to import minerals which will furthur extends into Iran and middle East.

 

[muse]

This makes the choke points of Hormuz and Malacca - redundant

 

[Kompromat]

This makes the choke points of Hormuz and Malacca - redundant

And saves Chinese oil supply from a sea dominated and controlled by the American Navy, hence stripping washington of its political leverage over Beijing just because they control China's oil supply.

 

[muse]

Exactly -- That big USN can now be used against all those who hate the freedoms of the US

 

[INDIC]

This makes the choke points of Hormuz and Malacca - redundant

Chinese already got an alternative to Malacca straits.

 

[muse]

Then they also avoid IN

 

[Kompromat]

Exactly -- That big USN can now be used against all those who hate the freedoms of the US

lol, This is just so interesting, most of us struggle to understand why the US invaded Afghanistan, i mean REALLY.

Pls read all of my posts,if you can.

http://www.defence.pk/forums/world-affairs/204652-americas-7-mistakes-afghanistan.html
http://www.defence.pk/forums/world-affairs/204652-americas-7-mistakes-afghanistan-4.html

 

[darkinsky]

Chinese already got an alternative to Malacca straits.

burmese relations not good with china

also the most of the western china is closer to pakistan, for example xinjiang and its cities urumqi, etc

 

[Imran Khan]

damn too late 5 years late why not day one ?

 

[Kompromat]

Then they also avoid IN

Sir they can demolish IN but they cant do that to USN. ALL of Chinese energy security and trade is dependent of the Sea, they want an alternative for BOTH, be it the Pakistan pipeline to China or the reinventing silk route.

 

[darkinsky]

This makes the choke points of Hormuz and Malacca - redundant

the train routes will make the supply cheaper

 

[INDIC]

the train routes will make the supply cheaper

Read the article once