Analyzing CPEC

The Strategic Issues & International Relations Forum is a venue to discuss issues pertaining to India's security environment, her strategic outlook on global affairs and as well as the effect of international relations in the Indian Subcontinent. We request members to kindly stay within the mandate of this forum and keep their exchanges of views, on a civilised level, however vehemently any disagreement may be felt. All feedback regarding forum usage may be sent to the moderators using the Feedback Form or by clicking the Report Post Icon in any objectionable post for proper action. Please note that the views expressed by the Members and Moderators on these discussion boards are that of the individuals only and do not reflect the official policy or view of the Bharat-Rakshak.com Website. Copyright Violation is strictly prohibited and may result in revocation of your posting rights - please read the FAQ for full details. Users must also abide by the Forum Guidelines at all times.
Aditya_V
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10695
Joined: 05 Apr 2006 16:25

Re: Analyzing CPEC

Postby Aditya_V » 04 Nov 2017 11:28

I dont think Pakistan Population is 300 million, just like they have a high birth rate, they also have a very high death rate which they try and conceal.

manjgu
BRFite
Posts: 1871
Joined: 11 Aug 2006 10:33

Re: Analyzing CPEC

Postby manjgu » 04 Nov 2017 14:19

guys... how is CPEC relevant for connecting central asia to Pakistan?? i was listening to a vid which said CPEC is a non starter without participation of Afghanistan and India .. no central asia connectivity? can someone explain.

pankajs
BRF Oldie
Posts: 11009
Joined: 13 Aug 2009 20:56

Re: Analyzing CPEC

Postby pankajs » 04 Nov 2017 15:25

1. Map and the CPEC/OBOR route is your best guide.
2. NO definitive conclusion can be reached without context and without stating the basic assumptions.

So let's start with the definition of CPEC I.e it is China Pakistan economic corridor. So based on just the basic definition the corridor does not depend on either Afghanistan or India to achieve its objective i.e. providing an economic corridor between Pakistan and China.

But OTOH, it is doubtful if in its basic form of it can be "economical" for various reasons.

Pakistan does NOT need Afghanistan to connect to Central Asia. It can route it's trade to China [Xinjiang] via CPEC and onward to CA. But again OTOH, it is certainly going to be much more expensive to go to CA via China than via Afghanistan which is the shortest route.

I could go on but you get the gist I hope. IF its intent is strategic and financial viability is not important then it fulfills all its stated objectives. OTOH, if economics is key then it fails without the participation of India and Afghanistan.

To use a rather absurd example, even Nepal can benefit from CPEC and bypass India all together. Karachi to Xinjiang to Tibet and finally to Nepal rather than Kolkatta to Nepal but such a route is going to be prohibitively expensive unless China and/or Pakistan agree to subsidize the whole cost of transportation and ensure that the cost at Nepal border is same as the landed cost at Karachi.

Peregrine
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7145
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Analyzing CPEC

Postby Peregrine » 04 Nov 2017 20:27

India will soon realise benefits of CPEC, says acting envoy

ISLAMABAD: China’s acting envoy said on Friday that India would also soon realise the benefits of Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) and China Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC), a flagship programme of the initiative.

“A certain country has a different opinion (about CPEC). I think it is matter of time that the certain country will realise the benefits of BRI and CPEC”, remarked Zhao Lijian, Charge d’ Affairs of the Chinese Embassy. The diplomat was responding to question about India’s criticism against CPEC.

Zhao said the 19th National Congress of Communist Party of China (CPC) adopted the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) as part of its constitution. He added that this has increased the importance of the project as it is now part of the official policy of the Chinese government. The diplomat was briefing the media on recently held National Congress of CPC.

BRI’s inclusion in the party constitution would boost Sino-Pak multifaceted relationship further, he informed the media.

Zhao also said that the next meeting of the Joint Cooperation Committee (JCC) – highest decision making body of CPEC – will be held in Islamabad later this week in which long term plans of the flagship programme will be discussed.

Among other components, the two sides have also agreed to establish nine special economic zones and the feasibility reports of these zones will likely be finalised in the upcoming moot.

Zhao also briefed journalists on China’s major economic and social achievements in the last five years and the country’s future road-map.

“General Secretary Xi Jinping put forward for the first time a blueprint for China’s development plan after 2020. One the basis of building a well-off society in all respects by 2020, socialist modernisation will be completed in China from 2020 to 2035; and from 2035 to the middle of this century, a great modern socialist country that is prosperous, strong, democratic and culturally advanced, harmonious and beautiful will be built,” he said.

China developed into the second largest economy in the world in the last five years, he added. China’s GDP has risen from 54 trillion yuan to 80 trillion yuan in the last five years, said the diplomat. Since the 18th conference in 2012, more than 60 million Chinese have also been lifted out of poverty, said Zhao.

From 1981 to 2012, the number of poor people in China also decreased by 790 million people, which accounts for 71.82 per cent of the global poverty reduction, he added. He also referred to the report presented before the Congress by President Xi Jinping and said it explained China’s foreign policies and guidelines in the new era.

Zhao said it was decided that China will continue to hold high the banner of peace, development and win-win cooperation. In its foreign policy, China will uphold principles of justice and sincerity, honesty, affinity and good faith.

The country will work to strengthen solidarity and cooperation with other developing countries, including Pakistan, assured the diplomat. China will foster a new type of international relations and build a community with a shared future for mankind, he added.

Zhao further said, “Xi Jinping’s thought on Socialism with Chinese characteristics for a new era has been included into the Party’s Constitution. The party’s report is a political declaration and a guide of action to start new journey in the new era.”

Cheers Image

Deans
BRFite
Posts: 838
Joined: 26 Aug 2004 19:13
Location: Moscow

Re: Analyzing CPEC

Postby Deans » 04 Nov 2017 22:03

manjgu wrote:guys... how is CPEC relevant for connecting central asia to Pakistan?? i was listening to a vid which said CPEC is a non starter without participation of Afghanistan and India .. no central asia connectivity? can someone explain.


PanjakS is correct. I'd like to add that for Central Asia, the best route for International trade is the shortest route to the sea - which is
via Iran and Chabahar port. There was a hope (or perhaps Pak got suckered into believing it) that with US sanctions on Iran and with a Pak friendly regime in Afghanistan, the Central Asian countries might look at moving goods through Afghanistan and then through Gwadar. Both assumptions are incorrect, hence this is now a non starter.
Most traffic likely along CPEC roads is Chinese cotton, which is toll free & tax free and will kill Pakistan's textile exports (over half their
total exports). These trucks have to return empty as there is nothing Pakistan can export to China. All sea imports to China through Gwadar are significantly more expensive than existing alternatives.

Prem
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21033
Joined: 01 Jul 1999 11:31
Location: Weighing and Waiting 8T Yconomy

Re: Analyzing CPEC

Postby Prem » 05 Nov 2017 00:15


chola
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3516
Joined: 16 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: USA

Re: Analyzing CPEC

Postby chola » 05 Nov 2017 15:10

Forget about Chabahar. Iran is neck deep in OBOR and is full of chini infrastructure projects as we speak. It might not help Pakistan but Chabahar will help Cheen. Iranians are terrorist supporting muzzies with far more in common with Cheen and the porkies than us. What country celebrates hostage taking at an embassy?

SSridhar
Forum Moderator
Posts: 23501
Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31
Location: Chennai

Re: Analyzing CPEC

Postby SSridhar » 05 Nov 2017 16:32

Don’t turn CPEC into another holy cow. Transparency is a must - Raza Rumi, DT
There is no question that the China Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) is a transformational endeavour but the larger questions of transparency and Pakistan’s commitments remain unclear.

Beijing and Islamabad are in the process of finalising a Long-term Plan (LTP), spread over a decade to define direction and goals of cooperation under the CPEC framework. Earlier in May, DAWN had made public a few details of the LTP document. Ahsan Iqbal, Minister in charge of CPEC had promised to make public the final LTP document. Now that time has come. Minister Iqbal has announced that LTP will be approved in the JCC meeting scheduled later this month. It is, thus, crucial that the government follows through on its commitment and releases the LTP document for public debate.

Debates of CPEC have highlighted three issues. First, the transparency of the initiative and lack of details about infrastructure and energy projects. These remain shrouded in mystery, which is not a surprise because both the Pakistani state and Chinese government have secretive decision-making processes. For Pakistan’s short-termist politicians this is a good deal, given the increased economic activity and cash inflows to the economy. For the generals, this is a clear-cut case of strategic gain vis-a-vis India; and the United States. By enhancing Chinese stakes in Pakistan and aligning with the Chinese security goals, the Pakistani military could not have asked for more. Something that they had been wanting for decades through American support which was at best partial in terms of creating an anti-India security infrastructure.

Thus far, Beijing and Islamabad have only released limited details on the agreements and financial components of the energy and infrastructure projects under the CPEC umbrella. The terms and conditions of these, by and large, remain opaque. Even our Parliament — representing 207 million people — has not been taken into confidence about the details of Chinese financed projects and crucial CPEC related pacts. This situation inhibits an informed analysis of the Corridor and what Pakistan would get out of this deal.

The second issue is that of indebtedness. Chinese banks are financing many sub-projects under CPEC ; employing Chinese firms and technology, which is not a bad thing. But the burden of loan repayments will be borne by the Pakistani citizenry. There has been considerable debate in the country about the mounting debt. However, ongoing political instability and controls over media have not enabled a wider public debate on this issue. Other than a handful of English press reporters and columnists, the mainstream Urdu broadcast media presents CPEC through the security lens — as a bulwark against Indian and American designs on Pakistan. China and CPEC have acquired holy cow status and there is little room for analytical and sanguine debates on this point.

The third issue relates to the prioritisation of investments. As Pakistan borrows more and more, its budget constraints in the medium-term will squeeze developmental goals especially in social sectors (health, education, population planning) and water management at the local level. Half of the country’s kids of school going age are out of school and with an abysmal healthcare systems the question remains as to how we will build human capital vital for long-term development goals. Unless we comprehensively addres social sector needs, as part of the development agenda, CPEC-driven economic growth cannot be sustainable.

On the positive side, CPEC will certainly lead to a shift in Pakistan’s reliance on Islamist proxies in the region. The Chinese are not too keen on Pakistan’s support for jihad infrastructure and they have the required leverage over military thinkers to change the decades’ old strategy that Pakistan has employed to improve ‘security.’ Chinese influence in this area must be welcomed for it is likely to herald a transformation of sorts. Chinese concerns were clearly expressed in the declaration after the BRICS Summit in August. It included references to Pakistan-based India- and Afghanistan-focused militant groups as a regional security threat. {Not necessarily true. China seems to be making a distinction between India-centric jihadi forces that do not harm Chinese and Pakistani interests and the rest. It wants to safe-keep the former and eliminate the latter. Hence the UN support for LeT & JeM} Pakistan’s security managers need to pay heed to signals emanating from Beijing. The Chinese want to safeguard their investments, personnel and want a long-term arrangement instead of what we are used to, that is, short-term and transactional arrangements.

Related to the above will be Pakistan’s gradual shift towards turning into a trade hub. Something that the military had forsaken in view of its rivalry with India, and limited relations with Iran, not to mention turbulent engagement with Afghanistan. Once CPEC moves on, which it will, Pakistan, as part of the Chinese economic architecture, will move towards trade with regional neighbours.{Pakistan will have nothing to trade with India. CPEC is not aimed at making Pakistan such a country. May be in a very limited way, but not much beyond that} Finally, the infusion of new technologies in energy, water, and agricultural sectors will benefit Pakistan’s huge needs given the population explosion, which has been confirmed by the 2017 census results.

Whether economic dependence and indebtedness will be offset by these gains remains to be seen and depends on how Pakistan’s policy makers steer this partnership over the next decade.

The key issue is that CPEC should not be made into another holy cow like our nuclear programme. An open debate about the pros and cons of CPEC investments, loan arrangements and the special incentives being offered to Chinese investors are critical to safeguard the economic interests of Pakistan and its future generations.

Peregrine
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7145
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Analyzing CPEC

Postby Peregrine » 06 Nov 2017 01:07

Lookie Lookie who is "Yellowing" their Pants!

X Posted on the Terroristan and Neutering & Defanging Chinese Threat Threads

China hopes India-US-Australia-Japan quadrilateral won't damage 'third party'

BEIJING: China is worried that India, United States, Japan and Australia will work together to undermine its international influence with the revival of their quadrilateral dialogue.

The first meeting of the dialogue would take place after a break of nearly a decade on the sidelines of the East Asia Summit in Manila on November 13. Prime Minister Narendra Modi is expected to attend the summit.

Chinese foreign ministry expressed hope that the dialogue is not used for "targeting or damaging third party's interest".
The ministry stated, " China has noticed the relevant news reports . We hope the collaboration among relevant countries could comply with the trend of times, which refers to peace, development, cooperation and shared benefits, and conform to the prospect of... common security and development.

"We hope it would be beneficial for improving mutual trust among countries and regions, and at the same time, safeguard and promote peace, tranquillity, and prosperity within the area, without targeting or damaging a third party's interest."

US President Donald Trump arrived in Japan as part of his Asia tour on Sunday. The concept of quadrilateral dialogue was mooted in 2007 but has not made any progress since then.

A Chinese expert, Prof Lian Degui of Shanghai International Studies University, said India can hardly contribute to the development in the region because it's struggling with its own economic challenges.

"If the US, Japan, Australia and India can coordinate and support infrastructure construction and economic development of Indo-Pacific countries, they are more than welcome. But if they try to incorporate values into economic issues and display prejudice and hostility toward other countries,they will not bring stability to the region," Lian wrote in Global Times. Chinawala shiveling in Yellow Pants!

"A US, saddled with a tight budget, a financially indebted Japan, an Australia eyeing a free ride on China's economic development, and an India still struggling to become a developed country, can hardly spare any effort to contribute to public good," Lian argued in the Beijing-based magazine.

"Geopolitical competition and value judgements are affecting the way the US and Japan articulate their political and economic policies. Last year, Abe proposed the 'free and open Indo-Pacific strategy', echoing Obama administration's rebalancing the Asia-Pacific policy and the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement, both of which aim at putting China in check. If they stick to such a mindset, they will miss crucial development opportunities offered by this era," Lian wrote.

Cheers Image

Masaru
BRFite
Posts: 242
Joined: 18 Aug 2009 05:46

Re: Analyzing CPEC

Postby Masaru » 06 Nov 2017 02:15

http://www.scmp.com/news/china/society/article/2118421/hunt-ming-dynasty-admiral-zheng-hes-lost-treasure-ship-heats

Study off coast of Sri Lanka, where massive vessel that was part of Chinese adventurer’s fleet sank 600 years ago, has delivered ‘positive results'

Since 2015, a team of scientists and archaeologists funded by the Chinese government and using advanced military-grade sensing equipment, has conducted multiple surveys of the sea floor along the Sri Lankan coastline in the hope of locating the sunken treasure ship. The hope now is that the traces of evidence they have found can finally lead them to their goal.

“The investigation is still at a primitive stage,” said Professor Prishanta Gunawardhana from the department of archaeology at the University of Kelaniya and the lead researcher on the Sri Lankan side. “A new study will take place in two weeks,” he said on Wednesday.

“We will use some advanced equipment brought over by our Chinese partners”, including a synthesised aperture sonar system capable of producing extremely high resolution images of underwater targets, he said.

The mission will be led by Professor Hu Changqing, director of the Shanghai Acoustics Laboratory at the Chinese Academy of Sciences. Hu has been involved in military projects and developed many new technologies for the Chinese navy, including a passive sonar system that allows submarines to avoid dangerous suboceanic currents. He could not be reached for comment.


Some historical context of how this had turned out back in 1410 for the Sri Lankans. This the fate that awaits the BRI and CPEC participants. So much for peaceful rise and never having had colonial aspirations. BRI and CPEC is resurrection of a colonial enterprise from the past.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ming%E2%80%93Kotte_War

Though accounts vary, the sea battle in which Zheng’s ship (or ships) were lost did not start well for the adventurer. Despite the size and power of his fleet, he was met with huge resistance from a force of about 50,000 people summoned by Ceylon’s King Alakeshvara.

According to one account, Zheng tactically deserted the naval battle and managed to land with 2,000 elite soldiers. They then cut through dense forest and launched a surprise attack on the king’s palace and took him hostage.

A century later, Chinese writer Yang Rong reflected on Zheng’s victory in a poem:
“Straight-away, their dens and hideouts we ravaged, and made captive that entire country, bringing back to our august capital, their women, children, families and retainers, leaving no one.”
As Yang wrote, Zheng returned to Beijing with the “disobedient” King Alakeshvara and his family and presented them to Ming emperor Yong Le. The emperor showed mercy and allowed them to return to Ceylon, but a new king had already been installed in his former kingdom.


Earlier studies off the coast of Sri Lanka, which is close to several major shipping lanes, had been closely monitored by Indian officials, a researcher said on condition of anonymity.
“India treats the Indian Ocean as its home water. Any activity undertaken by China here is going to put nerves on edge, but we have got used to it,” the researcher said.

India’s foreign ministry did not respond to the Post’s request for comment.

chetak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19146
Joined: 16 May 2008 12:00

Re: Analyzing CPEC

Postby chetak » 06 Nov 2017 11:03

^^^^^^^

It is also a very convenient way to map the seabed for military purposes which is what is undoubtedly being done.

Can't believe that the author of the article didn't mention this "small" point.

Peregrine
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7145
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Analyzing CPEC

Postby Peregrine » 08 Nov 2017 16:53

Washington’s reservations over CPEC

Of late, the US has raised objections on the multibillion-dollar China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC). Washington’s basis of objections on CPEC is that some part of the project runs through the internationally disputed territory of Kashmir. While no part of CPEC runs through the Indian-occupied or the Pakistan-administered Kashmir but the US, like India, considers Gilgit-Baltistan region of Pakistan as part of the greater Kashmir region. Therefore, any project in a disputed territory by a third country or involving a third country without the consensus of contestants is a violation of international law and the UN resolutions.

Prima facie the US objections over CPEC are not substantial. However, these have been made to attain wider strategic objectives. It is also important to note that these objections have come as part of President Donald Trump unfolding strategy for South Asia, particularly the Af-Pak sub-region. Noticeably no objection was raised on CPEC by Washington during the era of President Barack Obama when the project was conceived and commissioned.

Insofar as Washington’s objections to CPEC are concerned, they are attributable to two reasons. Firstly, the US considers China as a strategic competitor and an ever-rising economic power. The second important reason is India, which is bitterly opposed to CPEC. The most obvious reason for New Delhi’s opposition is that it would give benefits to Pakistan, its arch-rival, and China, also her enemy. India also thinks that through CPEC, China would be able to have virtual control of the strategic port of Gwadar. In Donald Trump’s strategy for South Asia and Af-Pak, India is of central importance. Washington thinks that India could play an anchoring role in the peace and stability of the region by both lending a helping hand in Afghanistan and keeping a check on Pakistan. This American policy has fundamental flaws.

The hard reality of international politics is that every state thinks for itself and therefore it is the sovereign right of the US to conceive and implement policies as it deems appropriate to stop China from becoming the leading economic and, ultimately, military power. CPEC is part of the $900 billion plus China’s initiative of One Belt, One Road (OBOR) which would involve a number of north-south economic corridors across Asia as well as connecting the Eurasian landmass for trade and commerce. By investing colossally in the OBOR initiative China wants to become an economic superpower. However, American policymakers must think that more than China it is the question of stability and prosperity of Pakistan without which the whole region cannot be peaceful and stable. The oft-repeated diplomatic stance and core objective of Washington has been to see a stable and developed region so it must not have any issues at least with CPEC.

China since the launch of CPEC has been desirous of making Afghanistan part of it. One of the key reasons of America’s failure in Afghanistan has been that Washington could not economically develop Afghanistan and put its economy on sustainable lines. For Afghanistan, there are great prospects to achieve the much-needed economic stability and financial sustainability by joining CPEC. In this way Afghanistan would give a safe passage to Washington to leave Afghanistan. The question is that whether it wants to leave?

There cannot be two opinions that stability in the entire Af-Pak and South Asian region is dependent upon a politically stable and economically prosperous Pakistan. Here one could recall the historic words of former Indian PM Atal Behari Vajpayee on his historic visit to Lahore in 1998. Speaking to Pakistanis, Vajpayee said that India wanted to see a stable and prosperous Pakistan. If India is convinced that the stability of entire South Asia is connected to a stable and developed Pakistan, Washington must be convinced of the same reality. In return to Vajpee's commitment to Terroristan Mush the Tush replied with the "Kargil Invasion". Today the Government of India - especially Prime Minister Modi - does not want a Repetition of the Terroristani Perfidy!

Therefore, any such project in which the development and stability of Pakistan is involved must logically be supported by the US; more importantly when such development is not coming at the cost of US taxpayers’ money.

Cheers Image

chetak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19146
Joined: 16 May 2008 12:00

Re: Analyzing CPEC

Postby chetak » 09 Nov 2017 10:42

Building transit trade’s coffin

Building transit trade’s coffin

BR RESEARCH NOV 6TH, 2017

For much too long we have believed Kabul to be dependent on Islamabad for trade. Even as transit trade tickled away from Pakistan to Iran, there was little change in the status quo. So far, we have already lost 40 percent of our trade to Iran and this trend is worsening. The latest sea route from India to Afghanistan via Iran is the next nail in the coffin of Afghan transit trade, the coffin that we are helping build.

On one hand we have Indian investment in Chabahar’s port that sent its first wheat shipment to Afghanistan last week. India has also opened an air freight corridor to increase access to the Afghan market. On the other hand, trade between Pakistan and Afghanistan via Torkham came to a halt this week. Custom authorities demanded clearing agents to show several documents related to import and export; a requirement that had not be implemented previously and hence caught the traders unprepared while nearly 800 loaded trucks remained stranded on both side of the border.


While Pakistan ignores the crumbling transit trade, India has been busy building it. India is investing $500 million in Chabahar port to build new terminals, cargo berth and connecting road and rail lines to improve linkages with Afghanistan and Central Asian Republics. In the coming month, India plans to send six more wheat consignments totaling 1.1 million tons to Afghanistan.

Work on Chabahar will take about a year to finish and will increase the port’s capabilities from 2.5 million tonnes to 8 million tons. India’s investments in Chabahar threaten Pakistan on two fronts. Firstly, India is muscling out Pakistan’s exports to Afghanistan and secondly we lose out on Afghanistan’s transit trade since India is one of the top exporters to Afghanistan that utilizes Pakistan’s routes.

“Alarm bells should be ringing,” says PAJCCI Chairman Zubair Motiwala. The government must realize the value of trade with Afghanistan. Already half the wheat flour mills and related businesses have closed down in Peshawar while we take steps to increase the trade deficit rather than decrease it, he said. “The government needs to understand that there is no difference between dollars coming in from the US, the EU or Afghanistan. This is our market that we are losing out on”, he added.

He explained that in the past, when borders have been closed he had talked to various people in power, from ISI to the ministries and the embassies to have the issues resolved. Yet, the problems persisted and members of PAJCCI lost fortunes as their perishables rotted away in containers.

India is taking advantage of Pakistan’s laxness and lack of concern to build and solidify its trade route. If the current state of affairs continues, Pakistan will lose Afghanistan’s growing and fertile market. And once lost, it will be almost impossible to recover due to India’s superior quality and trade facilitation efforts.

SSridhar
Forum Moderator
Posts: 23501
Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31
Location: Chennai

Re: Analyzing CPEC

Postby SSridhar » 09 Nov 2017 14:10

CPEC and the environment - Edit, DT
The China Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) has been underway for almost two years but the political leadership has yet to take into consideration its societal and environmental impact.

While the physical infrastructure and energy generation projects to be completed under the CPEC have the potential to boost economic activity, they will also result in degradation of the environment.

Not too long ago, the Karakoram Highway had supported only a handful of trucks that traversed its narrow route to move goods between markets in Pakistan and China. The highway is expected to carry up to 100 trucks a day when CPEC reaches its full swing.

The highest paved surface in the world already has more than a dozen diesel powered semi-trailer trucks chugging along it every day. The ugly dark fumes released by these trucks stand out in striking contrast to the pristine landscape alongside the highway. These dark fumes will eventually settle on glaciers, causing them to melt and form lakes. Installing catalytic converters in the trucks that use the highway can serve as a quick-fix and economical solution to reduce emissions.

This is just one of the cases where the environmental impact of CPEC-related projects needs to be tackled. A comprehensive assessment is needed for damage likely to be done to the environment. Some of the projects will need corrective measures but others might have to be abandoned for more sustainable initiatives.

The authorities must realise that blind faith in CPEC’s ability to turn around the economy can bring more harm than good. These projects need to be reviewed for sustainability and equity to ensure that benefits outweigh costs and that the benefits reach marginalised areas and population groups.

The government should realise that the effects of reckless development are challenging to recover. The plans it implements today have the potential to harm Pakistan tomorrow.
*

pankajs
BRF Oldie
Posts: 11009
Joined: 13 Aug 2009 20:56

Re: Analyzing CPEC

Postby pankajs » 09 Nov 2017 15:08

SSridhar wrote:CPEC and the environment - Edit, DT
Not too long ago, the Karakoram Highway had supported only a handful of trucks that traversed its narrow route to move goods between markets in Pakistan and China. The highway is expected to carry up to 100 trucks a day when CPEC reaches its full swing.

:shock: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: ... like a million times. For obvious reason I cannot put so many emoticons.

100 trucks a day = 36,500 trucks a year

Forget the economics of the route for the moment. Is that sufficient to carry the whole of China's external merchandise trade i.e to provide an alternate route to its Malacca dilemma? i.e about $4,000 billion worth of goods.

This is the often repeated mantra of the bakis for obvious reasons but also of supposedly knowledgeable commentators both in India and outside. Heck some PHD foreign policy commentators too have come to the same conclusion. I recall an Indian sounding foreign resident PHD also adding his voice to the "bypass malacca" thinking recently. It seems even PHDs don't grant people the capacity to think straight and ask simple questions. So much for "experts" with PHDs in the subject.

Is the capacity sufficient to carry at least 10% of China's external merchandise trade? i.e about $400 billion. India's total import and export = $600 billion.

How about capacity to carry 1% of China's external merchandise trade at least? i.e about $ 40 billion. This is closer to what is possible BUT with many ifs and buts. Will have to be a truck full of high valued goods. Lets do the maths. $40 billion on 36.5 K trucks means ~ $1.1 million worth of goods per truck i.e. about INR 7 crore per truck if my maths is correct. What will they be transporting hanji? :rotfl: Why why ... Indian won't need to sabotage CPEC. :rotfl: The baki mango will do that without any *extra* incentive i.e Baki rupee 15 crore per truck will be sufficient incentive. Better than looting a baki bank IMHO. CPEC needs more security NOT from Indian ebill designs but from the local populace. :rotfl: [Someone please check my maths in INR and Baki Rupee]

The more probable case is about $10-20 billion trade per year if the capacity is 100 trucks per day. That comes to around 0.25 - 0.50 % of total Chinese external merchandise trade. Again the higher figure will depend of a lot of ifs and buts. So much for bypass Malacca.

Lets now talk of the amount of toll that will be collected on the traffic of 36.5 K trucks in a year. Forget return on the $11 billion investment, forget recouping the maintenance cost, anyone thinks the toll will be sufficient to even pay the salaries of the toll collectors and toll collecting infrastructure?

PS: Multiple edits for clarity.

manjgu
BRFite
Posts: 1871
Joined: 11 Aug 2006 10:33

Re: Analyzing CPEC

Postby manjgu » 09 Nov 2017 17:00

assuming the road is open 365 days a year !!!

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 52377
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Analyzing CPEC

Postby ramana » 10 Nov 2017 21:07

USI Occasional Paper on CPEC

http://usiofindia.org/publications/Occa ... _Final.pdf

It short about 8 pages and quite insightful from a military POV.

anupmisra
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8279
Joined: 12 Nov 2006 04:16
Location: New York

Re: Analyzing CPEC

Postby anupmisra » 10 Nov 2017 22:49

ramana wrote:USI Occasional Paper on CPEC

http://usiofindia.org/publications/Occa ... _Final.pdf


From the paper,

Today, the China-Pakistan nexus is touted as an all weather friendship which is deeper than the deepest ocean, so it may be instructive to step back in time and recall some statements made by leaders of Pakistan in the 1950s and 60s.

It was on 16 July 1957 that Prime Minister Suhrawardy of Pakistan, declared in Los Angeles that, “We have thrown our lot with you (the you here refers to USA). We are very gravely apprehensive of communist domination, infiltration and aggression.…….. We have no difficulty in cooperating with you in helping keep the world safe from communist aggression.” And on the seizure of Tibet by China in 1959, Field Marshal Ayub Khan on 23 October 1959 said, “Events and developments on the Tibet border and Afghanistan would make the sub-continent militarily vulnerable in about five years. This is to say that facilities have been created on either flank of the subcontinent whereby a major invasion could take place.”

And two months later Ayub Khan referred to the possibility that “Russia could move across West Pakistan down to the Sea and China towards the Malay peninsula. Not only Pakistan but the entire Indian Ocean littoral would be exposed.” Pakistan’s reaction to Chinese incursions into J&K was also very different then.

When Chinese incursions into Ladakh in J&K were discovered and India took up the matter with the Chinese Government, Field Marshal Ayub Khan in an interview with the Daily Telegraph, London, on 27 November 1959 warned India that “without our concurrence any settlement between China and India will be something we will not recognize.”

So let us wait and see what the Pakistan narrative would be a decade down the line.

anupmisra
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8279
Joined: 12 Nov 2006 04:16
Location: New York

Re: Analyzing CPEC

Postby anupmisra » 10 Nov 2017 22:56

Same paper has this on G'wadar:

It is to be noted that Gwadar, which was sold by Oman to Pakistan in 1958, probably at the behest of UK and/or USA, not only provides direct access to the Indian Ocean but it is also where the land and maritime network of OBOR converge.

Although Gwadar’s commercial viability as a transhipment port is suspect considering its distance from the circumequatorial navigation route, low depths and lack of rail connectivity, its administrative control was handed over to China for a period of 40 years in 2013.

Is it mere coincidence that the operational control of Pakistan’s Karachi Port is with China Overseas Port Holdings Company and that Sri Lanka’s Colombo South Container Terminal is built, run and controlled by China Merchants Holding?

Is it also a coincidence that Chinese naval submarines including a Ming-class, diesel – electric nuclear submarine docked in Karachi and Colombo? The pointers are clear, Gwadar with its proximity to Hormuz, its suitability to accommodate naval warships and submarines, and its capability to serve as a hub for replenishment and weapon logistics make it an ideal naval base.

With an airport, as part of the Gwadar Project, it becomes an ideal surveillance and interdiction hub. Recently there were reports that Pakistan has created a special force for the protection of Gwadar port and that two Chinese Warships were pressed into service to enhance Gwadar port’s security. Does one use warships and naval security units to protect commercial ports in peace time?

The answer is simple – Gwadar is a strategic naval port and that it may well turn out to be China’s first overseas naval port, much sooner than expected.


As often, BRF predicted this, well ahead of the curve.

kit
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2987
Joined: 13 Jul 2006 18:16

Re: Analyzing CPEC

Postby kit » 11 Nov 2017 00:09

pankajs wrote:
SSridhar wrote:CPEC and the environment - Edit, DT

:shock: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: ... like a million times. For obvious reason I cannot put so many emoticons.

100 trucks a day = 36,500 trucks a year

Forget the economics of the route for the moment. Is that sufficient to carry the whole of China's external merchandise trade i.e to provide an alternate route to its Malacca dilemma? i.e about $4,000 billion worth of goods.

This is the often repeated mantra of the bakis for obvious reasons but also of supposedly knowledgeable commentators both in India and outside. Heck some PHD foreign policy commentators too have come to the same conclusion. I recall an Indian sounding foreign resident PHD also adding his voice to the "bypass malacca" thinking recently. It seems even PHDs don't grant people the capacity to think straight and ask simple questions. So much for "experts" with PHDs in the subject.

Is the capacity sufficient to carry at least 10% of China's external merchandise trade? i.e about $400 billion. India's total import and export = $600 billion.

How about capacity to carry 1% of China's external merchandise trade at least? i.e about $ 40 billion. This is closer to what is possible BUT with many ifs and buts. Will have to be a truck full of high valued goods. Lets do the maths. $40 billion on 36.5 K trucks means ~ $1.1 million worth of goods per truck i.e. about INR 7 crore per truck if my maths is correct. What will they be transporting hanji? :rotfl: Why why ... Indian won't need to sabotage CPEC. :rotfl: The baki mango will do that without any *extra* incentive i.e Baki rupee 15 crore per truck will be sufficient incentive. Better than looting a baki bank IMHO. CPEC needs more security NOT from Indian ebill designs but from the local populace. :rotfl: [Someone please check my maths in INR and Baki Rupee]

The more probable case is about $10-20 billion trade per year if the capacity is 100 trucks per day. That comes to around 0.25 - 0.50 % of total Chinese external merchandise trade. Again the higher figure will depend of a lot of ifs and buts. So much for bypass Malacca.

Lets now talk of the amount of toll that will be collected on the traffic of 36.5 K trucks in a year. Forget return on the $11 billion investment, forget recouping the maintenance cost, anyone thinks the toll will be sufficient to even pay the salaries of the toll collectors and toll collecting infrastructure?

PS: Multiple edits for clarity.


Me thinks there are a lot of people in Pakistan living off shipments destined for Afghanistan ..good business for them

Prem
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21033
Joined: 01 Jul 1999 11:31
Location: Weighing and Waiting 8T Yconomy

Re: Analyzing CPEC

Postby Prem » 11 Nov 2017 03:48

kit wrote:
pankajs wrote: :shock: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: ... like a million times. For obvious reason I cannot put so many emoticons.

100 trucks a day = 36,500 trucks a year
Lets now talk of the amount of toll that will be collected on the traffic of 36.5 K trucks in a year. Forget return on the $11 billion investment, forget recouping the maintenance cost, anyone thinks the toll will be sufficient to even pay the salaries of the toll collectors and toll collecting infrastructure?
Me thinks there are a lot of people in Pakistan living off shipments destined for Afghanistan ..good business for them


Simple Paki style revenue solution is to devalue paki currecny by 100 so Paki can earn 100 times more rupees to keep H & D along with P.

arun
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10248
Joined: 28 Nov 2002 12:31

Re: Analyzing CPEC

Postby arun » 12 Nov 2017 19:05

A very pained reaction from a writer from the Mohammadden Terrorism Fomenting Islamic Republic of Pakistan that Afghanistan and India looked into the mouth of the CPEC gift horse and have concluded it does not on balance provide a net benefit to both countries.

India-Afghan Nexus: Impact on CPEC

anupmisra
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8279
Joined: 12 Nov 2006 04:16
Location: New York

Re: Analyzing CPEC

Postby anupmisra » 13 Nov 2017 02:03

Pakistan finish last in hockey tournament after losing 2-1 to Japan

Japan thumped Pakistan 2-1. Pakistan received their worst-ever defeat in hockey against Australia when they lost 1-9 to the hosts. On Saturday, New Zealand beat Pakistan 3-2


There. That says it all.

https://www.dawn.com/news/1370059/pakis ... 1-to-japan

anupmisra
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8279
Joined: 12 Nov 2006 04:16
Location: New York

Re: Analyzing CPEC

Postby anupmisra » 13 Nov 2017 02:08

Slow day today for me. So, I am focusing on the little stuff that never fails to please us at BRF.

Wasim Akram says ICC powerless against BCCI :((

Akram...accused the ICC of being powerless against the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI)
He expressed disappointment that young cricketers were being kept from playing against each other.
a series between India and Pakistan would be more exciting than the Ashes
"Twenty million people watch the Ashes while a Pakistan-India match is watched by a billion people”

And, a must-add to the end of everything every thing related to paki kirkit today:

The last time Pakistan played against India was in the ICC Champions Trophy final, where the latter were defeated by 180 runs.


I wonder how long the pakis will keep milking that one-off aberration?

https://www.dawn.com/news/1369651/wasim ... ainst-bcci

anupmisra
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8279
Joined: 12 Nov 2006 04:16
Location: New York

Re: Analyzing CPEC

Postby anupmisra » 13 Nov 2017 02:21

Birather mulk Tajikistan...

Exports to Tajikistan dip on tariff restrictions

Pakistan’s exports to Tajikistan plunged 40 per cent owing to tariff restrictions and non-availability of cost-effective transportation system. (But...but...but wasn't seepak going to solve all that? After all, chinistan is connected to Tajikistan via the Pamir Highway and bakistan is connected to chinistan via the KKK...why are the chinis not allowing paki exports transit by road?)


Image

The biggest bottleneck for Pakistani companies in sending their cargoes to Tajikistan was the non-availability of direct air links between the two countries restricting trade volume.
In 2016, Tajikistan’s Somon Air had started direct flights from Lahore to Dushanbe, but suspended its operations due to non-viability from commercial point of view.(Wha...? paki man speakth with forked tongue)
Official data compiled by the Ministry of Commerce showed that exports to Tajikistan dropped to $4.5m in 2015-16 from $7.5m in 2014-15. But imports, mainly of raw cotton, increased to $11.16m from $0.068m during the same period.


I know a solution. Blame India for not encouraging Afghanistan to allow paki trade transit.


https://www.dawn.com/news/1369933/expor ... strictions

anupmisra
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8279
Joined: 12 Nov 2006 04:16
Location: New York

Re: Analyzing CPEC

Postby anupmisra » 13 Nov 2017 02:42

LOSING OUR MARBLE
I am not making up this title

the Marble City in Mohmand Agency exists only on paper.
.. in 2006 when Pakistan and China inked a Free Trade Agreement,.. The FTA turned the (export) tariff rates into “preferential” ones for China
Today, Marble City looks done and dusted. Partly, it’s due to the slowdown of the Chinese economy but, more importantly, the Pakistani marble sector is in dire straits due to the structural weaknesses of the country’s own economic policies
“There was a rise of demand in China after the 2008 recession..., but the truth is that...the country was allowing itself to be blindly robbed of its natural resource.”
“Because the sector lacks regulation, everyone and their grandmother got in on it
Any quarry owner would go to China, find a buyer, the Chinese would come, load up the blocks and go.
“Many local exporters didn’t follow the international standard”
En masse dumping of marble in the international market meant that the prices came down. And with prices driven downwards, Pakistani exporters began competing amongst themselves.
What “ruined the industry” and continues to do is the wholesale exports of marble blocks (raw marble mined out of quarries in the shape of square blocks) to China to feed its construction appetite.
“About 75 percent of the raw marble goes to China”
“We compete with each other based on pricing and obviously from a buyer’s point of view, they will always exploit the best deal possible.”
In comparison, the medieval technology of blasting is all that Pakistan has to show at its mines.
China is the biggest importer of marble from Pakistan... which is then re-exported from China after value addition, which is hurting Pakistan’s marble industry to a significant extent
“China... pays no export duty to Pakistan, and the freight the Chinese pay to transport the material on ship is just 50 dollars per container.”
While Pakistan has given an open hand to the Chinese companies (who also enjoy the largess of their own government), local investors receive no support from the Pakistani government, putting them at further disadvantage against the Chinese.
In what seems totally scandalous, the steady stream of raw marble to China and the non-existence of local value-adding capacities means that it’s actually “China that buys our raw materials, processes it, and sells it as ‘Made in China’ in the rest of the world,” says Saifullah.
China is definitely reaping the rewards
CPEC will allow the Chinese to develop warehouses in Pakistan, which means that they won’t even have to technically ‘import’ since all the material would then be already there. They will penetrate even more; China will be on your head. What more could they want?


Hail SeePak. What next? SeePak chinis marrying local khatoons?

https://www.dawn.com/news/1369996/losing-our-marble

yensoy
BRFite
Posts: 1314
Joined: 29 May 2002 11:31
Location: USA

Re: Analyzing CPEC

Postby yensoy » 13 Nov 2017 02:52

anupmisra wrote:I wonder how long the pakis will keep milking that one-off aberration?

https://www.dawn.com/news/1369651/wasim ... ainst-bcci


It's the one-off aberration which matters. Muhammad Ghori was pushed back numerous times by Prithviraj Chauhan, but the one time he won changed history.

With these fellows, and our other neighbour to the North/East, we can't afford even one-off losses.

pankajs
BRF Oldie
Posts: 11009
Joined: 13 Aug 2009 20:56

Re: Analyzing CPEC

Postby pankajs » 13 Nov 2017 09:40

pankajs wrote:How about capacity to carry 1% of China's external merchandise trade at least? i.e about $ 40 billion. This is closer to what is possible BUT with many ifs and buts. Will have to be a truck full of high valued goods. Lets do the maths. $40 billion on 36.5 K trucks means ~ $1.1 million worth of goods per truck i.e. about INR 7 crore per truck if my maths is correct. What will they be transporting hanji? :rotfl: Why why ... Indian won't need to sabotage CPEC. :rotfl: The baki mango will do that without any *extra* incentive i.e Baki rupee 15 crore per truck will be sufficient incentive. Better than looting a baki bank IMHO. CPEC needs more security NOT from Indian ebill designs but from the local populace. :rotfl: [Someone please check my maths in INR and Baki Rupee]

The more probable case is about $10-20 billion trade per year if the capacity is 100 trucks per day. That comes to around 0.25 - 0.50 % of total Chinese external merchandise trade. Again the higher figure will depend of a lot of ifs and buts. So much for bypass Malacca.

Lets get more specific.
Most containers used in transportation are either 20" or 40" where the latter's capacity is higher. So lets calculate.

Max container load in 40" = 26.33 tons x 1000 = 26,330 kg
Assuming Rice or Sugar @ INR 50 / kg

The max value per container = 26,330 x 50 = 13,16,500 ~ 13 lakhs per container

Lets multiply this number by 5 so as to provide an adequate factor of safety to our assumptions i.e Assume INR 65 lakh per container in goods value. Assuming USD/INR exchange rate to be 65, that comes to about $ 1 lakh per container/trip/truck i.e $0.1 million per trip/truck.

What will 100 truck/trip per day i.e. 36,500 truck/trip per year mean in terms of transported value?
$0.1 million x 36,500 = $3,650 million = $3.65 billion per year

Even at 100 x 10 truck/trips per day the max value that will be transported by the corridor will be $36.5 billion per year i.e less than 0.5% of the total global Chinese merchandise trade.

So the throughput of the CPEC corridor should be between $3.65 billion [1/10 of 0.5% of the Chinese global trade] @ 100 trips per day and $36.5 billion [0.5% of the Chinese global trade] @ 100x10 trips per day.

periaswamy
BRFite
Posts: 448
Joined: 07 Jul 2017 20:50

Re: Analyzing CPEC

Postby periaswamy » 13 Nov 2017 09:44

Thanks, pankajs. Given the infeasibility of CPEC being an economic corridor as has been sold to the morons in Pakistan, it is clear that CPEC makes more sense as a military supply line. If Gwadar is to become a naval military base, CPEC sounds like the route for the military supply chain to Gwadar. This also means that China has every intention of taking over PoK for that purpose, and its propping up of the pak military and its jihadi terrorist proxies in the international arena, implies that PLA intends to cement its long-term presence in PoK in due course.

Kashi
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3345
Joined: 06 May 2011 13:53

Re: Analyzing CPEC

Postby Kashi » 13 Nov 2017 09:57

anupmisra wrote:I wonder how long the pakis will keep milking that one-off aberration?


As long as they can. It was indeed a shameful capitulation by a shameless bunch..

pankajs
BRF Oldie
Posts: 11009
Joined: 13 Aug 2009 20:56

Re: Analyzing CPEC

Postby pankajs » 13 Nov 2017 09:59

pankajs wrote:Lets now talk of the amount of toll that will be collected on the traffic of 36.5 K trucks in a year. Forget return on the $11 billion investment, forget recouping the maintenance cost, anyone thinks the toll will be sufficient to even pay the salaries of the toll collectors and toll collecting infrastructure?
anupmisra wrote:LOSING OUR MARBLE
https://www.dawn.com/news/1369996/losing-our-marble
“China... pays no export duty to Pakistan, and the freight the Chinese pay to transport the material on ship is just 50 dollars per container.”

If uber banias that the Chinese are how much does bakistan "hope" to collect as tolls when the alternate transportation cost is $50 per container. And this $50 should include everything i.e. port charges, loading/handling cost and shipping cost.

Even if transportation cost is FREE, which it is not, the max the CPEC project can HOPE to collect is $50 per container! Else the Cheenis will bypass CPEC and ship their goods i.e at least the goods to and from the eastern industrial centers. :rotfl:

Now @ 100 trips per day = 36,500 trips per year x $50 per trip = $1.825 MILLION for the year. Walla! Massalla! Subhanalla!
:rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:
Let check out the more rosy scenario i.e. 10 x 100 trips per day i.e. 3,65,000 trips per year = $1.825 million x 10 = $18.25 million.

The MAXIMUM expected toll income from CPEC is $1.825 million per one baki but lets grant that he might have made a mistake assume 10x CPEC capacity and hence 10x toll collection i.e. $18.25 million.

Now the transportation cost is NOT free as I had assumed for the previous calculation. Infact, it wouldn't be wrong to assume that the JUST the cost of transporting containers over CPEC will be multiple of $50. It remains to be seen how much "commercial" traffic goes over CPEC and how much toll the bakis collect.

Who knows but that the bakis may end of paying incentives to get traffic over CPEC instead of collecting tolls.

SSharma
BRFite
Posts: 363
Joined: 16 Aug 2016 15:26

Re: Analyzing CPEC

Postby SSharma » 13 Nov 2017 10:43

^^ the above is misleading

The 50usd is actually the container cost. BL and land transport to the port is separate. Usually totals in the range of 1000 to 1200usd per container.

To keep things in perspective, you can get containers for 0usd from India to certain destinations.

Aditya_V
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10695
Joined: 05 Apr 2006 16:25

Re: Analyzing CPEC

Postby Aditya_V » 13 Nov 2017 10:53

All this is Ok, but most this marble and granite is in POK and Nagarparkar district, Both places which should be part of India if not for Nehru's ceasefire on Jan 1949 and a more aggressive approach by us in 1965.

pankajs
BRF Oldie
Posts: 11009
Joined: 13 Aug 2009 20:56

Re: Analyzing CPEC

Postby pankajs » 13 Nov 2017 13:16

SSharma wrote:^^ the above is misleading

The 50usd is actually the container cost. BL and land transport to the port is separate. Usually totals in the range of 1000 to 1200usd per container.

To keep things in perspective, you can get containers for 0usd from India to certain destinations.

You might well be right but here is the exact quote
anupmisra wrote:LOSING OUR MARBLE
https://www.dawn.com/news/1369996/losing-our-marble
“China, on the other hand, gets to have square blocks,” continues Tariq. “It also pays no export duty to Pakistan, and the freight the Chinese pay to transport the material on ship is just 50 dollars per container.”

"The freight" charge payed "to transport" as is used in this quote,to my non-technical/non-field specific mind, is "transportation cost" but each to his own.

It is likely that empty containers/ships on a return journey might be offering exceptionally low rates. Even in such a scenario "returning empty containers/ships" will offer competition to CPEC on rates till all such capacities are absorbed.

Deans
BRFite
Posts: 838
Joined: 26 Aug 2004 19:13
Location: Moscow

Re: Analyzing CPEC

Postby Deans » 13 Nov 2017 13:47

manjgu wrote:assuming the road is open 365 days a year !!!


It includes trucks returning empty and trucks covering part of the distance (e.g. Karachi to Lahore and not Pak to China) So, in a rare moment of honesty, Pak feels that in a best case scenario, they would have 50* 300 days = 15,000 trucks on the route a day.

pankajs
BRF Oldie
Posts: 11009
Joined: 13 Aug 2009 20:56

Re: Analyzing CPEC

Postby pankajs » 13 Nov 2017 14:02

Ok .. Lets flesh out the other scenario

1. There is NO empty returning containers/ships from Bakistan to China i.e. No ultra low rates.
2. Current Bakistan to China ship "freight cost" per container comes to a round $1000 per container worth of goods.

That necessarily means that

CPEC transportation + CPEC Toll <= $1000
i.e. CPEC Toll = $1000 - CPEC transportation cost

Case - 1 Transportation cost of a container worth of good = $ 0
The Bakis CAN collect a toll of $1000 if CPEC transportation cost is ZERO
At this rate 100 trips per day i.e. 36,500 trips per year will fetch them = $36.5 Million
At the rate of 10x 100 trips day i.e. 3,65,000 trip per year will fetch them = $365 Million

Bestest of best case revenue, $365 million is 3.3% of the project cost of $11 Billion. Should cover the cost of collecting tolls but not enough to cover the annual maintenance cost of the highway, especially one that goes through such a harsh terrain.

And this is the best case! i.e 10x traffic that the baki suggested is the highway capacity and NO transportation cost allowing the full value to be extracted as Toll.

Case 2 Transportation cost of a container worth of good = $500
If the transportation cost from Bakistan to Kashgar/Urumqui is $500 per container worth of goods then the toll that can be extracted is $500
At this rate 100 trips per day i.e. 36,500 trips per year will fetch them = $18.25 Million
At the rate of 10x 100 trips day i.e. 3,65,000 trip per year will fetch them = $182.5 Million

Bestest of best case revenue, $182.25 million is 1.66% of the project cost of $11 Billion.

Case 3 Transportation cost of a container worth of good = $1000
If the transportation cost from Bakistan to Kashgar/Urumqui is $1000 per container worth of goods then the toll that can be extracted is ZERO
At this rate 100 trips per day i.e. 36,500 trips per year will fetch them = ZERO
At the rate of 10x 100 trips day i.e. 3,65,000 trip per year will fetch them = ZERO

Bestest of best case revenue, ZERO is 0.00% of the project cost of $11 Billion.

Case 4 Transportation cost of a container worth of good > $1000
I will leave it to your imagination.

manjgu
BRFite
Posts: 1871
Joined: 11 Aug 2006 10:33

Re: Analyzing CPEC

Postby manjgu » 13 Nov 2017 14:07

will the road be open 365 days a year?

pankajs
BRF Oldie
Posts: 11009
Joined: 13 Aug 2009 20:56

Re: Analyzing CPEC

Postby pankajs » 13 Nov 2017 14:20

Given the terrain I would think them lucky to have it open 75% of the time. More likely between 50% and 75% of time it would be open i.e for between 180 - 270 days but not more.

My best *guess* is for 225 [mean of 180 and 270] days of connectivity and traffic. One can pick the scenarios and assumption on traffic and make the adjustment to arrive at CPEC Toll revenues.

Deans
BRFite
Posts: 838
Joined: 26 Aug 2004 19:13
Location: Moscow

Re: Analyzing CPEC

Postby Deans » 13 Nov 2017 15:37

pankajs wrote:Given the terrain I would think them lucky to have it open 75% of the time. More likely between 50% and 75% of time it would be open i.e for between 180 - 270 days but not more.

My best *guess* is for 225 [mean of 180 and 270] days of connectivity and traffic. One can pick the scenarios and assumption on traffic and make the adjustment to arrive at CPEC Toll revenues.


All these calculations will be moot, if, as it is suggested, Chinese trucks will not have to pay toll.

pankajs
BRF Oldie
Posts: 11009
Joined: 13 Aug 2009 20:56

Re: Analyzing CPEC

Postby pankajs » 13 Nov 2017 15:52

That too ..

I have another thought that I will expand on later.


Return to “Strategic Issues & International Relations Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: uskumar and 48 guests