What's new

Bangladesh's Deep Sea Port Problem

Something interesting to add here:

Kashmir HDI for 2012 @ 0.626 is higher than both India's and Pakistan's HDIs of 2014 @ 0.609 and 0.528 respectively.

Guess India's investments in Kashmir do pay off :)

http://www.indiaenvironmentportal.org.in/files/file/Human and Child Deprivation.pdf

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_Human_Development_Index#cite_note-UNDP2015-2

Yah bro, but gotta stay specific to what is brought up by others first ;) Can't derail thread too much :disagree: ...I am getting in trouble for it lately.

Dont argue with @Abu Zolfiqar . If you post make some sense, he will mark negative on your posts. :lol:

That how you got your sole negative rating? :)
 
. .
Back on topic - I happened across a video that showed the Chinese prowess of building a deep sea port 32 KM out from shore. I won't go into silly comparisons between countries, but there is something in this for us all to take lessons in....

Yangshan Port (Chinese: 洋山港, p Yángshān Gǎng), formally the Yangshan Deep-Water Port (洋山深水港, p Yángshān Shēnshuǐ Gǎng), is a deep water port for container ships in Hangzhou Bay south of Shanghai. Connected to Shanghai's Pudong New Area by the Donghai Bridge and forming part of the Port of Shanghai, the islands of Greater and Lesser Yangshan are administered separately as part of Zhejiang's Shengsi County.

 
.
Bangladesh's Deep Sea Port Problem

China, Japan, and India are all competing to build Dhaka’s first deep sea port.

By Wade Shepard
June 07, 2016



Bangladesh needs a deep sea port. The country has one of world’s fastest growing economies, which is expected to rise at a 7.1 percent clip this year. It is on Goldman Sachs’s list of the “Next 11” emerging economic powerhouses of the 21st century. On the strength of the second-most dynamic textile industry on the planet, Bangladesh’s export sector is booming, and is expected to eclipse $50 billion per year in value by 2021. This is all in a country without adequate maritime infrastructure.
In its 45-year history as an independent state, Bangladesh has never built a new port. While $60 billion of annual trade currently pours through the country’s two existing seaports, Chittagong and Mongla, both are too shallow for large container ships and require costly load transfers to smaller vessels to get cargo in and out — an added step that can cost an additional $15,000 per day and severely decreases the ports’ global competitiveness.
However, finding solutions to this problem has proven problematic for Bangladesh. But this isn’t because of a lack of options, a deficit of investors, or even a dearth of international support, but exactly the opposite: too many powerful players are pushing for too many contending plans. This has left Bangladesh geopolitically stalemated, making and breaking deals, going with one project and then changing position and going with another. Ultimately, this plethora of options has pitted China, Japan, and India in direct competition with each other to build Bangladesh’s first deep sea port.

Although a small country, Bangladesh is of clutch geopolitical importance, being located in the armpit of India and right on the Indian Ocean. The Indian Ocean region contains 25 percent of the world’s land, 40 percent of its oil and gas reserves, and a third of the global population. It hosts one of the world’s busiest and most important shipping lanes, which supplies East Asia with the bulk of its Middle Eastern crude oil. Dhaka is still politically and economically pliable–like a ball of clay–and has become one of the preeminent global staging grounds of interests from east and west, which are trying to mold the country to be what they want it to be and not get pushed out of the game. Bangladesh is a keystone nation in the region, balancing together the contending influences of India, China, the United States, and Japan.

The Belt and Road initiative is the formalization of China’s strategy for securing and bolstering their commercial trade routes, and Bangladesh is a major part of its maritime agenda. China has been establishing a network of ports, dubbed the 21st Century Maritime Silk Road, extending from their own coastlines through Southeast Asia, the Indian Ocean, the east coast of Africa, and up through the Mediterranean to Greece. Although designed as a commercial project, this endeavor has instilled a sense of trepidation in the other actors in the South Asian theater, who perceive it as potentially having militaristic ramifications — or at least leveraging this reasoning to push their own competing agendas. This trepidation was brought up by consulting firm Booz Allen Hamilton in a 2005 internal report prepared for the U.S. Department of Defense, which first dubbed this plan the “String of Pearls” — a label that has been used ever since to denigrate China’s ambitions in the watery parts of South Asia.
This geopolitical competition has risen to an apex when it comes to selecting the site and the financier of Bangladesh’s first deep sea port, with some powers making great financial and political strides to secure their own interests and to keep those of others at bay. There are currently at least four potential locations for the impending new port: Chittagong, Sonadia, Matarbari, and Payra.

Chittagong

Chittagong, positioned a little way up the Karnaphuli River on the northeast curve of the Bay of Bengal, has always been the largest and by far most important seaport in Bangladesh. Once a major hub on the ancient Maritime Silk Road, Chittagong has a history that stretches back to the fourth century B.C. Ptolemy, the Chinese traveler-monk Faxian, and Ibn Battuta all wrote about the place. Today, this position of relevance still rings true.
“We handle 98 percent of the country’s container cargo, 92 percent of the total cargo volume,” a port development administrator explained. “So you can imagine how important this port is to Bangladesh. If Chittagong port collapsed the whole economy will collapse.”
Ninety-two percent of Bangladesh’s total ocean freight equates to over 30 million tons of bulk cargo and more than 1.8 million TEUs (twenty-foot equivalent units) each year. And these numbers are rising fast. Cargo volume through Chittagong port is rising at a 14 to 15 percent clip annually, and at the present growth rate it is estimated that the port would top out by 2018.
The problem with Chittagong is that the current maximum draft of the port is just 9.2 meters — definitely not deep enough for many modern container ships. This requires a time-consuming and costly transfer operation, as smaller ships must be used to transport cargo to and from big ocean freighters that are anchored out in the bay.
One proposal to remedy this problem is the construction of a new port on a 1,200 acre island in the Bay of Bengal off the coast of Patenga, and in proximity to Chittagong. Dubbed the Bay Terminal, this would not technically be a deep sea port–as its maximum draft would be up to 13 or 14 meters, rather than the 15 needed to be granted this designation–but it would allow for larger ships to come directly into port.
As early as 2010, China was publicly invited to get on board with expanding and modernizing Chittagong port, and at one point the country pledged $9 billion toward the endeavor.
“It will be a great achievement if China agrees to use our Chittagong port, which we want to develop into a regional commercial hub by building a deep seaport in the Bay of Bengal,” Bangladesh’s then Foreign Minister Dipu Moni told Reuters.
This plan bode well for China’s broader ambitions of building an overland corridor from Yunnan province to a port on the Bay of Bengal. The plan would essentially provide China with a link to the sea that, aside from transiting Myanmar, could bypass Southeast Asia and the snake pit of potentially volatile interests there. This prompted international commentators to quickly brand the Chittagong deep sea port proposal as one of China’s “pearls,” which put Bangladesh in a rather precarious geopolitical position. So much so that in June 2015 Bangladesh granted Indian cargo ships permission to use Chittagong port.

Sonadia

Realizing that Chittagong may fall through, China had a contingency plan for another deep sea port in Bangladesh all cued up and ready to go. A few years following a 2009 Japanese survey in Sonadia, an island near Cox’s Bazar in the south of the country, which determined it a suitable location for a deep-draft port, China jumped in and offered its financial assistance.
China Harbor Engineering Company, a subsidiary of the state-owned China Communications Construction Company–the same enterprise that is building Colombo Port City in Sri Lanka, and which also happens to be blacklisted by the World Bank on allegations of corruption–was chosen as the developer, and Bangladesh appeared to have given China the green light. During Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina’s 2014 visit to Beijing it was widely assumed that a deal for Sonadia was going to be formally signed, but then it wasn’t.
It was widely assumed that political pressure was put on Bangladesh from India and the United States to disallow China to build and operate the Sonadia port. With China already building ports in Sri Lanka, Pakistan, the Maldives, and Myanmar, Bangladesh was the last remaining link on a chain that would leave India completely surrounded.
“India’s not very happy that China and Pakistan are holding a strategic and economic relationship, and part of their objection is the One Belt, One Road and the Pakistan-China economic corridor,” said Shahid Islam, a research fellow at the BRAC Institute of Governance and Development, a Dhaka-based center for policy research.
After a period of being quiet about the prospective port, in February of 2016 Bangladesh made the formal announcement that it had been scrapped.
“The cancellation of Sonadia is clearly a strategic decision by Bangladesh, doubtlessly helped along by India, Japan and the U.S.,” wrote Indrani Bagchi in an article in the Times of India.

Matarbari

Another reason for the potential cancellation of the Sonadia port was that Bangladesh had granted a contract to Japan to build a deep sea port at Matarbari, just 25 kilometers away.
Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA) is to build the port along with a liquefied natural gas terminal, a series of four 600 MW coal-fed power plants, as well as rail lines, roadways, and electrical systems as part of a monumental infrastructural package deal. The master plan is that the port would be used to receive coal, which could power an entire new industrial zone in the far southeast of the country.
To make this happen, JICA offered a loan to take care of $3.7 billion out of the total $4.6 billion price tag, at 0.1 percent interest for 30 years and a 10 year grace period thrown in on top of that, according to the South China Morning Post.

Payra

Originally seeming like a condolence prize for China, which had been beaten out for a deep sea port in the south of the country by Japan, Bangladesh proposed a deep sea port at Payra, which is located on the northwestern coast of the Bay of Bengal.
The construction of this port, which was being financed on a public-private partnership (PPP) platform, was originally granted to a Chinese company, and it was starting to look like China was finally going to get its deep sea port in Bangladesh. Then the usual chorus of India, Japan, and the United States resounded once again.
However, as a change of pace, India stepped in and stated that they wanted to get in on the action and be one of the port’s big investors. This was a very different strategy than simply trying to prevent China from having their port while offering no other viable alternative, which had previously been the diplomatic model.
The Payra deep sea port was then reconfigured as a cooperative port that many different countries could invest and operate terminals in. It has been reported that Indian companies are now participating and 10 countries have considered jumping in with $15.5 billion of investment, which is felt to be very different than China having a port in Bangladesh all to themselves.
“Bangladesh politics are driven by India, and the U.S. to some extent,” Shahid Islam explained. “Bangladesh can’t move ahead with China in terms of big collaborations, in terms of making the Silk Route or One Belt, One Road or an economic corridor.”
Like many other countries along the Belt and Road, Bangladesh wants to leverage its keystone position between major global powers and be “a friend to everyone.” But at this junction the country finds itself in very turbulent waters as the great game of geopolitics exerts its influence on every horizon.

Wade Shepard is a journalist and author of Ghost Cities of China.
 
.
Bangladesh's Deep Sea Port Problem
China, Japan, and India are all competing to build Dhaka’s first deep sea port.
By Wade Shepard for The Diplomat
June 07, 2016

Bangladesh needs a deep sea port. The country has one of world’s fastest growing economies, which is expected to rise at a 7.1 percent clip this year. It is on Goldman Sachs’s list of the “Next 11” emerging economic powerhouses of the 21st century. On the strength of the second-most dynamic textile industry on the planet, Bangladesh’s export sector is booming, and is expected to eclipse $50 billion per year in value by 2021. This is all in a country without adequate maritime infrastructure.
In its 45-year history as an independent state, Bangladesh has never built a new port. While $60 billion of annual trade currently pours through the country’s two existing seaports, Chittagong and Mongla, both are too shallow for large container ships and require costly load transfers to smaller vessels to get cargo in and out — an added step that can cost an additional $15,000 per day and severely decreases the ports’ global competitiveness.
However, finding solutions to this problem has proven problematic for Bangladesh. But this isn’t because of a lack of options, a deficit of investors, or even a dearth of international support, but exactly the opposite: too many powerful players are pushing for too many contending plans. This has left Bangladesh geopolitically stalemated, making and breaking deals, going with one project and then changing position and going with another. Ultimately, this plethora of options has pitted China, Japan, and India in direct competition with each other to build Bangladesh’s first deep sea port.

Although a small country, Bangladesh is of clutch geopolitical importance, being located in the armpit of India and right on the Indian Ocean. The Indian Ocean region contains 25 percent of the world’s land, 40 percent of its oil and gas reserves, and a third of the global population. It hosts one of the world’s busiest and most important shipping lanes, which supplies East Asia with the bulk of its Middle Eastern crude oil. Dhaka is still politically and economically pliable–like a ball of clay–and has become one of the preeminent global staging grounds of interests from east and west, which are trying to mold the country to be what they want it to be and not get pushed out of the game. Bangladesh is a keystone nation in the region, balancing together the contending influences of India, China, the United States, and Japan.


The Belt and Road initiative is the formalization of China’s strategy for securing and bolstering their commercial trade routes, and Bangladesh is a major part of its maritime agenda. China has been establishing a network of ports, dubbed the 21st Century Maritime Silk Road, extending from their own coastlines through Southeast Asia, the Indian Ocean, the east coast of Africa, and up through the Mediterranean to Greece. Although designed as a commercial project, this endeavor has instilled a sense of trepidation in the other actors in the South Asian theater, who perceive it as potentially having militaristic ramifications — or at least leveraging this reasoning to push their own competing agendas. This trepidation was brought up by consulting firm Booz Allen Hamilton in a 2005 internal report prepared for the U.S. Department of Defense, which first dubbed this plan the “String of Pearls” — a label that has been used ever since to denigrate China’s ambitions in the watery parts of South Asia.

This geopolitical competition has risen to an apex when it comes to selecting the site and the financier of Bangladesh’s first deep sea port, with some powers making great financial and political strides to secure their own interests and to keep those of others at bay. There are currently at least four potential locations for the impending new port: Chittagong, Sonadia, Matarbari, and Payra.

Chittagong
Chittagong, positioned a little way up the Karnaphuli River on the northeast curve of the Bay of Bengal, has always been the largest and by far most important seaport in Bangladesh. Once a major hub on the ancient Maritime Silk Road, Chittagong has a history that stretches back to the fourth century B.C. Ptolemy, the Chinese traveler-monk Faxian, and Ibn Battuta all wrote about the place. Today, this position of relevance still rings true.

“We handle 98 percent of the country’s container cargo, 92 percent of the total cargo volume,” a port development administrator explained. “So you can imagine how important this port is to Bangladesh. If Chittagong port collapsed the whole economy will collapse.”

Ninety-two percent of Bangladesh’s total ocean freight equates to over 30 million tons of bulk cargo and more than 1.8 million TEUs (twenty-foot equivalent units) each year. And these numbers are rising fast. Cargo volume through Chittagong port is rising at a 14 to 15 percent clip annually, and at the present growth rate it is estimated that the port would top out by 2018.

The problem with Chittagong is that the current maximum draft of the port is just 9.2 meters — definitely not deep enough for many modern container ships. This requires a time-consuming and costly transfer operation, as smaller ships must be used to transport cargo to and from big ocean freighters that are anchored out in the bay.

One proposal to remedy this problem is the construction of a new port on a 1,200 acre island in the Bay of Bengal off the coast of Patenga, and in proximity to Chittagong. Dubbed the Bay Terminal, this would not technically be a deep sea port–as its maximum draft would be up to 13 or 14 meters, rather than the 15 needed to be granted this designation–but it would allow for larger ships to come directly into port.

As early as 2010, China was publicly invited to get on board with expanding and modernizing Chittagong port, and at one point the country pledged $9 billion toward the endeavor.
“It will be a great achievement if China agrees to use our Chittagong port, which we want to develop into a regional commercial hub by building a deep seaport in the Bay of Bengal,” Bangladesh’s Foreign Minister Dipu Moni told Reuters.

This plan bode well for China’s broader ambitions of building an overland corridor from Yunnan province to a port on the Bay of Bengal. The plan would essentially provide China with a link to the sea that, aside from transiting Myanmar, could bypass Southeast Asia and the snake pit of potentially volatile interests there. This prompted international commentators to quickly brand the Chittagong deep sea port proposal as one of China’s “pearls,” which put Bangladesh in a rather precarious geopolitical position. So much so that in June 2015 Bangladesh granted Indian cargo ships permission to use Chittagong port.

Sonadia
Realizing that Chittagong may fall through, China had a contingency plan for another deep sea port in Bangladesh all cued up and ready to go. A few years following a 2009 Japanese survey in Sonadia, an island near Cox’s Bazar in the south of the country, which determined it a suitable location for a deep-draft port, China jumped in and offered its financial assistance.

China Harbor Engineering Company, a subsidiary of the state-owned China Communications Construction Company–the same enterprise that is building Colombo Port City in Sri Lanka, and which also happens to be blacklisted by the World Bank on allegations of corruption–was chosen as the developer, and Bangladesh appeared to have given China the green light. During Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina’s 2014 visit to Beijing it was widely assumed that a deal for Sonadia was going to be formally signed, but then it wasn’t.

It was widely assumed that political pressure was put on Bangladesh from India and the United States to disallow China to build and operate the Sonadia port. With China already building ports in Sri Lanka, Pakistan, the Maldives, and Myanmar, Bangladesh was the last remaining link on a chain that would leave India completely surrounded.

“India’s not very happy that China and Pakistan are holding a strategic and economic relationship, and part of their objection is the One Belt, One Road and the Pakistan-China economic corridor,” said Shahid Islam, a research fellow at the BRAC Institute of Governance and Development, a Dhaka-based center for policy research.

After a period of being quiet about the prospective port, in February of 2016 Bangladesh made the formal announcement that it had been scrapped.

“The cancellation of Sonadia is clearly a strategic decision by Bangladesh, doubtlessly helped along by India, Japan and the U.S.,” wrote Indrani Bagchi in an article in the Times of India.
Matarbari

Another reason for the potential cancellation of the Sonadia port was that Bangladesh had granted a contract to Japan to build a deep sea port at Matarbari, just 25 kilometers away.
Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA) is to build the port along with a liquefied natural gas terminal, a series of four 600 MW coal-fed power plants, as well as rail lines, roadways, and electrical systems as part of a monumental infrastructural package deal. The master plan is that the port would be used to receive coal, which could power an entire new industrial zone in the far southeast of the country.

To make this happen, JICA offered a loan to take care of $3.7 billion out of the total $4.6 billion price tag, at 0.1 percent interest for 30 years and a 10 year grace period thrown in on top of that, according to the South China Morning Post.

Payra
Originally seeming like a condolence prize for China, which had been beaten out for a deep sea port in the south of the country by Japan, Bangladesh proposed a deep sea port at Payra, which is located on the northwestern coast of the Bay of Bengal.

The construction of this port, which was being financed on a public-private partnership (PPP) platform, was originally granted to a Chinese company, and it was starting to look like China was finally going to get its deep sea port in Bangladesh. Then the usual chorus of India, Japan, and the United States resounded once again.

However, as a change of pace, India stepped in and stated that they wanted to get in on the action and be one of the port’s big investors. This was a very different strategy than simply trying to prevent China from having their port while offering no other viable alternative, which had previously been the diplomatic model.

The Payra deep sea port was then reconfigured as a cooperative port that many different countries could invest and operate terminals in. It has been reported that Indian companies are now participating and 10 countries have considered jumping in with $15.5 billion of investment, which is felt to be very different than China having a port in Bangladesh all to themselves.

“Bangladesh politics are driven by India, and the U.S. to some extent,” Shahid Islam explained. “Bangladesh can’t move ahead with China in terms of big collaborations, in terms of making the Silk Route or One Belt, One Road or an economic corridor.”

Like many other countries along the Belt and Road, Bangladesh wants to leverage its keystone position between major global powers and be “a friend to everyone.” But at this junction the country finds itself in very turbulent waters as the great game of geopolitics exerts its influence on every horizon.
Wade Shepard is a journalist and author of Ghost Cities of China.

Excellent article with good links and research. However, the Bangladeshi and Indian 'talking heads' he quotes are of course biased and tilted towards Indian viewpoint.

There are too many shameless false flaggers in this forum under Bangladeshi flag that are trying to do the same. We should keep our eyes open for these posters and the viewpoints that they try to influence us with.

China cant even handle vietnam or the philippines in any decisive way....yet here you are projecting them as some unrivalled power in Asia....all because of the state of Bangladesh's puniness today.

At least it makes for good comedy.

Have you even read any of the actual white papers released by China w.r.t PLAN and the timeframes they involve for CBG's?

Bangladesh is a non-entity to China beyond selling a few old rusty trinkets here and there....they know Bangladesh political leadership is compromised by India and significant/entire portions of its military leadership too (just ask @asad71 one of your alleged war veterans).

Bangladesh is really an entity used by China to inform India of what its exact tech levels at the low/mid level end are.....basically a free demo for India to try out Chinese bulk military goodies and divert resources more efficiently in the larger interest of world peace and prosperity. Bangladesh has no long term strategic value nor does it have a leadership or people that can back up any strategic opposition to India like Pakistan provides. Better deal with truly understanding that basic reality before making wild projections and fantasies about the "next decade".

Hollow delusional vulture wish as always.....see you on the other side of reality....:lol:

Be careful when you're bringing a powerful nation to the game against your neighbour.Pakistan tried,the result is not that much promising.Plus,Neighbour is here to stay,so called "Powerful Nation" will stop helping the moment their interests will end.

By the way,why Bangladesh is so eager to deal with corrupt chinese companies??West Bengal Govt(CPIM) had love towards their "Friendly" Comrades,which left our state's electricity production in ruins,thanks to shoddy chinese electrical products.

Indians going all panicky and weak-kneed. Well it is bound to happen and inevitable no matter what. Look at where India's offensive military or naval posture is and where China's is. For starters look at how many indigenous nuclear subs they have and how many you have....supa pawa dreams are just dreams. They cannot materialize with imported tech and rental subs.

Effed up as always. :disagree:
 
.
Indians going all panicky and weak-kneed. Well it is bound to happen and inevitable no matter what. Look at where India's offensive military or naval posture is and where China's is. For starters look at how many indigenous nuclear subs they have and how many you have....supa pawa dreams are just dreams. They cannot materialize with imported tech and rental subs.

Effed up as always. :disagree:

Indian Navy is totally in dominant position in IOR,where we operate.China has to contend against USN,JSDFN,Vietnamese navy and of course with IN.But IN has to contend against only PLAN((handful of ships operating in IOR in any given time) and PN(If you call it a Navy.LOL).Still,150+ Surface fleet is quite massive.
 
.
'Bay terminal' to ease pressure on Ctg port

Published : 11 Jul 2017, 20:02

Staff Correspondent, Ctg
aW1hZ2UtNDg2OC5qcGc=

To cope with ever-growing pressure on export-import containers, the Chittagong Port Authority (CPA) is setting up the first-ever ‘Bay Terminal’.

Work on the $200 crore new terminal is progressing fast on Patenga coast close to Chittagong seaport.

The main infrastructure of the terminal will be the same in length like the existing port. The equipment cost will be $2.6 billion. With completion of the work, the terminal is expected to host vessels three times more than the existing capacity of the port.

The feature has been shown in the feasibility study on the construction of the terminal.

HPC Hamburg Port Consulting and Sellhorn Engineering of Germany and KS Consultants of Bangladesh conducted the study, which was started in September 2016.

In the meantime, the companies submitted the final report of the study to the authorities concerned.

The first half of the six-kilometre terminal would be used for shipping goods and there would be 19 jetties at the rest of the terminal.
Contacted, Zafar Alam, member (admin and planning), “After a proper study, it has come to our view that it’s possible to set up a technical port here. This project has also stood out as economical. On the way to the shipping channel, the rate of silt deposit is low as well. Moreover, several such benefits have also been highlighted in the study.”

“Primarily, our plan is to berth 300 metres with the maximum draft of 12-metre vessels at the proposed terminal. Construction of basic infrastructure, including three terminals, excavation and barrier wall, for current will cost $2 billion. But $3.9 billion will be spent gradually, particularly for operating and equipment cost. The spent money will be retrieved within 11 years.”

As the country’s export and import are gradually increasing, the CPA has made an initiative to build the bay terminal in 2012. As part of the initiative, the feasibility study has been done.

Due to continuous siltation and low draft, large vessels cannot berth at Chittagong seaport. Currently, a vessel, which carries 1,500 units of container, can berth at port whereas a vessel with 4,000 units will be able to berth in the bay terminal.

The study revealed some advantages of the terminal, which are—unlike the existing port, it would require excavation once in a year; it is going to give easy access to roads, internal waterways, and railways for carrying goods and it will also minimise the investment cost as the new terminal will be connected directly to Dhaka bound road and railway.

Chittagong port is the principal port of Bangladesh that handled 93 per cent of the country’s export-import trade in sea route while Mongla port handled seven per cent.

Container handling is increasing at an average of 13 per cent every year in the last five years at Chittagong port. So, the port is facing problem to tackle the increasing trend.

CPA sources said, the acquisition of 907 acres of land for the Bay Terminal is in final stage. After the construction of the jetty, it is possible to recover approximately 1,600 acres of land from the sea. The CPA has planned to start work of loading and unloading goods at Bay Terminal by 2021 in the first phase.

HPC EVALUATES THE FEASIBILITY OF A CONTAINER TERMINAL IN BANGLADESH’S BIGGEST PORT

Port of Chittagong, the largest in the south Asian state Bangladesh, is set to be enlarged. Chittagong is situated in the south of Bangladesh, handling 92 percent of the country’s seaward traffic. Over the past ten years, Bangladesh has seen its economy grow by around six percent every year.

The expansion plans are set according to a new port master plan which was prepared by HPC Hamburg Port Consulting - a Hamburger Hafen und Logistik AG (HHLA) subsidiary - together with Hamburg based Sellhorn Engineering and the local partner KS Consultants from Dhaka, Bangladesh. The port master plan is based on the assumption that the construction of a new port facility is essential for the country’s economy to continue growing at such a pace. In consequence, the port master plan - which was funded by the Asian Development Bank - has budgeted USD 1.9 billion in development costs to carry out the entire port project.

The three companies have now been selected by the Chittagong Port Authority (CPA) to carry out a feasibility study for the “Bay Terminal”, which was started in September 2016. The plan is to construct a port facility that focuses on containers on the Patenga coast, close to the existing port, which is located 16 kilometres inland. The master plan provides for another container terminal and a multi-purpose terminal.

Mahbubul Alam, President of the Chittagong Chamber of Commerce and Industry (CCCI), said: “Building this terminal will significantly reduce transport costs incurred during import and export.”

HPC Managing Director Felix Kasiske: “We are very proud to be involved in this significant undertaking which adds to numerous port projects in the Asia region in which our HPC specialists have already contributed their sought-after expertise.”
 
.
Indian Navy is totally in dominant position in IOR,where we operate.China has to contend against USN,JSDFN,Vietnamese navy and of course with IN.But IN has to contend against only PLAN((handful of ships operating in IOR in any given time) and PN(If you call it a Navy.LOL).Still,150+ Surface fleet is quite massive.

Thanks for your sane post. How many of these 150 IN vessels are actually modernized or 'ship-shape' as they say?

Bangladesh Navy operates 101 vessels for the amount of coastal area. And we're just halfway done with our naval expansion and modernization.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_active_ships_of_the_Bangladesh_Navy

For its coastal area around India, 150+ IN vessels would seem rather thinly stretched.

This is a provisional plan of bay terminal in Patenga I posted a month ago. So many projects happening, that I can't keep all facts straight....:lol:

https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/partners-selected-to-develop-new-terminal-at-chittagong-port.507155/

Construction-of-Bay-Terminal-Chittagong.jpg
 
.
Bangladesh's Deep Sea Port Problem
China, Japan, and India are all competing to build Dhaka’s first deep sea port.
By Wade Shepard for The Diplomat
June 07, 2016

Bangladesh needs a deep sea port. The country has one of world’s fastest growing economies, which is expected to rise at a 7.1 percent clip this year. It is on Goldman Sachs’s list of the “Next 11” emerging economic powerhouses of the 21st century. On the strength of the second-most dynamic textile industry on the planet, Bangladesh’s export sector is booming, and is expected to eclipse $50 billion per year in value by 2021. This is all in a country without adequate maritime infrastructure.
In its 45-year history as an independent state, Bangladesh has never built a new port. While $60 billion of annual trade currently pours through the country’s two existing seaports, Chittagong and Mongla, both are too shallow for large container ships and require costly load transfers to smaller vessels to get cargo in and out — an added step that can cost an additional $15,000 per day and severely decreases the ports’ global competitiveness.
However, finding solutions to this problem has proven problematic for Bangladesh. But this isn’t because of a lack of options, a deficit of investors, or even a dearth of international support, but exactly the opposite: too many powerful players are pushing for too many contending plans. This has left Bangladesh geopolitically stalemated, making and breaking deals, going with one project and then changing position and going with another. Ultimately, this plethora of options has pitted China, Japan, and India in direct competition with each other to build Bangladesh’s first deep sea port.

Although a small country, Bangladesh is of clutch geopolitical importance, being located in the armpit of India and right on the Indian Ocean. The Indian Ocean region contains 25 percent of the world’s land, 40 percent of its oil and gas reserves, and a third of the global population. It hosts one of the world’s busiest and most important shipping lanes, which supplies East Asia with the bulk of its Middle Eastern crude oil. Dhaka is still politically and economically pliable–like a ball of clay–and has become one of the preeminent global staging grounds of interests from east and west, which are trying to mold the country to be what they want it to be and not get pushed out of the game. Bangladesh is a keystone nation in the region, balancing together the contending influences of India, China, the United States, and Japan.


The Belt and Road initiative is the formalization of China’s strategy for securing and bolstering their commercial trade routes, and Bangladesh is a major part of its maritime agenda. China has been establishing a network of ports, dubbed the 21st Century Maritime Silk Road, extending from their own coastlines through Southeast Asia, the Indian Ocean, the east coast of Africa, and up through the Mediterranean to Greece. Although designed as a commercial project, this endeavor has instilled a sense of trepidation in the other actors in the South Asian theater, who perceive it as potentially having militaristic ramifications — or at least leveraging this reasoning to push their own competing agendas. This trepidation was brought up by consulting firm Booz Allen Hamilton in a 2005 internal report prepared for the U.S. Department of Defense, which first dubbed this plan the “String of Pearls” — a label that has been used ever since to denigrate China’s ambitions in the watery parts of South Asia.

This geopolitical competition has risen to an apex when it comes to selecting the site and the financier of Bangladesh’s first deep sea port, with some powers making great financial and political strides to secure their own interests and to keep those of others at bay. There are currently at least four potential locations for the impending new port: Chittagong, Sonadia, Matarbari, and Payra.

Chittagong
Chittagong, positioned a little way up the Karnaphuli River on the northeast curve of the Bay of Bengal, has always been the largest and by far most important seaport in Bangladesh. Once a major hub on the ancient Maritime Silk Road, Chittagong has a history that stretches back to the fourth century B.C. Ptolemy, the Chinese traveler-monk Faxian, and Ibn Battuta all wrote about the place. Today, this position of relevance still rings true.

“We handle 98 percent of the country’s container cargo, 92 percent of the total cargo volume,” a port development administrator explained. “So you can imagine how important this port is to Bangladesh. If Chittagong port collapsed the whole economy will collapse.”

Ninety-two percent of Bangladesh’s total ocean freight equates to over 30 million tons of bulk cargo and more than 1.8 million TEUs (twenty-foot equivalent units) each year. And these numbers are rising fast. Cargo volume through Chittagong port is rising at a 14 to 15 percent clip annually, and at the present growth rate it is estimated that the port would top out by 2018.

The problem with Chittagong is that the current maximum draft of the port is just 9.2 meters — definitely not deep enough for many modern container ships. This requires a time-consuming and costly transfer operation, as smaller ships must be used to transport cargo to and from big ocean freighters that are anchored out in the bay.

One proposal to remedy this problem is the construction of a new port on a 1,200 acre island in the Bay of Bengal off the coast of Patenga, and in proximity to Chittagong. Dubbed the Bay Terminal, this would not technically be a deep sea port–as its maximum draft would be up to 13 or 14 meters, rather than the 15 needed to be granted this designation–but it would allow for larger ships to come directly into port.

As early as 2010, China was publicly invited to get on board with expanding and modernizing Chittagong port, and at one point the country pledged $9 billion toward the endeavor.
“It will be a great achievement if China agrees to use our Chittagong port, which we want to develop into a regional commercial hub by building a deep seaport in the Bay of Bengal,” Bangladesh’s Foreign Minister Dipu Moni told Reuters.

This plan bode well for China’s broader ambitions of building an overland corridor from Yunnan province to a port on the Bay of Bengal. The plan would essentially provide China with a link to the sea that, aside from transiting Myanmar, could bypass Southeast Asia and the snake pit of potentially volatile interests there. This prompted international commentators to quickly brand the Chittagong deep sea port proposal as one of China’s “pearls,” which put Bangladesh in a rather precarious geopolitical position. So much so that in June 2015 Bangladesh granted Indian cargo ships permission to use Chittagong port.

Sonadia
Realizing that Chittagong may fall through, China had a contingency plan for another deep sea port in Bangladesh all cued up and ready to go. A few years following a 2009 Japanese survey in Sonadia, an island near Cox’s Bazar in the south of the country, which determined it a suitable location for a deep-draft port, China jumped in and offered its financial assistance.

China Harbor Engineering Company, a subsidiary of the state-owned China Communications Construction Company–the same enterprise that is building Colombo Port City in Sri Lanka, and which also happens to be blacklisted by the World Bank on allegations of corruption–was chosen as the developer, and Bangladesh appeared to have given China the green light. During Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina’s 2014 visit to Beijing it was widely assumed that a deal for Sonadia was going to be formally signed, but then it wasn’t.

It was widely assumed that political pressure was put on Bangladesh from India and the United States to disallow China to build and operate the Sonadia port. With China already building ports in Sri Lanka, Pakistan, the Maldives, and Myanmar, Bangladesh was the last remaining link on a chain that would leave India completely surrounded.

“India’s not very happy that China and Pakistan are holding a strategic and economic relationship, and part of their objection is the One Belt, One Road and the Pakistan-China economic corridor,” said Shahid Islam, a research fellow at the BRAC Institute of Governance and Development, a Dhaka-based center for policy research.

After a period of being quiet about the prospective port, in February of 2016 Bangladesh made the formal announcement that it had been scrapped.

“The cancellation of Sonadia is clearly a strategic decision by Bangladesh, doubtlessly helped along by India, Japan and the U.S.,” wrote Indrani Bagchi in an article in the Times of India.
Matarbari

Another reason for the potential cancellation of the Sonadia port was that Bangladesh had granted a contract to Japan to build a deep sea port at Matarbari, just 25 kilometers away.
Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA) is to build the port along with a liquefied natural gas terminal, a series of four 600 MW coal-fed power plants, as well as rail lines, roadways, and electrical systems as part of a monumental infrastructural package deal. The master plan is that the port would be used to receive coal, which could power an entire new industrial zone in the far southeast of the country.

To make this happen, JICA offered a loan to take care of $3.7 billion out of the total $4.6 billion price tag, at 0.1 percent interest for 30 years and a 10 year grace period thrown in on top of that, according to the South China Morning Post.

Payra
Originally seeming like a condolence prize for China, which had been beaten out for a deep sea port in the south of the country by Japan, Bangladesh proposed a deep sea port at Payra, which is located on the northwestern coast of the Bay of Bengal.

The construction of this port, which was being financed on a public-private partnership (PPP) platform, was originally granted to a Chinese company, and it was starting to look like China was finally going to get its deep sea port in Bangladesh. Then the usual chorus of India, Japan, and the United States resounded once again.

However, as a change of pace, India stepped in and stated that they wanted to get in on the action and be one of the port’s big investors. This was a very different strategy than simply trying to prevent China from having their port while offering no other viable alternative, which had previously been the diplomatic model.

The Payra deep sea port was then reconfigured as a cooperative port that many different countries could invest and operate terminals in. It has been reported that Indian companies are now participating and 10 countries have considered jumping in with $15.5 billion of investment, which is felt to be very different than China having a port in Bangladesh all to themselves.

“Bangladesh politics are driven by India, and the U.S. to some extent,” Shahid Islam explained. “Bangladesh can’t move ahead with China in terms of big collaborations, in terms of making the Silk Route or One Belt, One Road or an economic corridor.”

Like many other countries along the Belt and Road, Bangladesh wants to leverage its keystone position between major global powers and be “a friend to everyone.” But at this junction the country finds itself in very turbulent waters as the great game of geopolitics exerts its influence on every horizon.
Wade Shepard is a journalist and author of Ghost Cities of China.

you are at a disadvantage as far as geography goes
singapore and colombo have a big head start

Nope, next decade China will be a superpower and an Asian one at that.

BD has no designs on Indian territory but needs an external power to balance out the power differential with India

Dont worry, it wont be a formal alliance but more a case of 100,000+ tonne Chinese nuclear super-carriers being joined by units from both BD and Pakistan to show who is boss in the region.:partay:
The big boss is the US Navy. good luck with challenging them
 
.
you are at a disadvantage as far as geography goes
singapore and colombo have a big head start
If you compare Bangladeshi port with Singapore or Colombo than most of the countries in the world have geographic disadvantage.Do you think, Singapore and Colombo like port are generously distributed around the world by nature? It is like saying, India is in a geographic disadvantage because it has no oil like Saudi Arabia.

That two port are in a pivotal location as far as trade between East and West are concerned.Port is their backbone of the economy.We don't have to become an another Singapore port.That is not even possible.You can't have a second Singapore in this world.If a deep sea port can satisfy our need and may be some neighboring areas, that will be enough.
 
Last edited:
.
Hollow delusional vulture wish as always.....see you on the other side of reality....:lol:

No worries, definition of reality means nothing from the guy that hollered constantly Walton would be exporting billions of dollars right now.

A nice reality will visit on BD around the next election :)....you may find you are short of body bags....or seeing how Dhaka looks, probably will be an improvement having random bodies strewn around. You can finally achieve what you long have claimed (indeed founded upon) on one front at least.

Dhaka scored miserably in economist liveability index (2017) again (scrapping the bottom just like always)....I am looking forward to yet another year of 4 or less points added to HDI (confirming big time plateauing of socioeconomic development), no upgrading (or even downgrading) of PPP multiplier by IMF and most importantly continued stagnation and/or deterioration in corruption perception index and all institution rating indices. All trends that now have 5 year heritage or more unlike fanciful export dreaming from a company that cant even get past 6% of its own domestic motorcycle market.

You can enjoy all these realities for the coming years and decades, losers!
 
.
If you compare Bangladeshi port with Singapore or Colombo than most of the countries in the world have geographic disadvantage.Do you think, Singapore and Colombo like port are generously distributed around the world by nature? It is like saying, India is in a geographic disadvantage because it has no oil like Saudi Arabia.

That two port are in a pivotal location as far as trade between East and West are concerned.Port is their backbone of the economy.We don't have to become an another Singapore port.That is not even possible.You can't have a second Singapore in this world.If a deep sea port can satisfy our need and may be some neighboring areas, that will be enough.

Let us cut to the chase. The only two neighboring areas are India and Myanmar.
you will be competing with Singapore and Colombo for those markets
 
.
Let us cut to the chase. The only two neighboring areas are India and Myanmar.
you will be competing with Singapore and Colombo for those markets

No one in Bangladesh wants to transship anything for Indian or Myanmarese ports. For starters Thilawa near Yangon is already capable of handling more than Myanmar will need for the next half decade or more. Also, India has plenty of shipping options for its Northeast which doesn't have much growth in any case.

If anything, Bangladesh wants NE India to be a resourceful hinterland solely dependent on trade with Bangladesh, and nothing more.

Case closed.
 
.
No one in Bangladesh wants to transship anything for Indian or Myanmarese ports. For starters Thilawa near Yangon is already capable of handling more than Myanmar will need for the next half decade or more. Also, India has plenty of shipping options for its Northeast which doesn't have much growth in any case.

If anything, Bangladesh wants NE India to be a resourceful hinterland solely dependent on trade with Bangladesh, and nothing more.

Case closed.
trade with NE India is possible. solely dependent on Bangladesh might not happen
 
.
Thanks for your sane post. How many of these 150 IN vessels are actually modernized or 'ship-shape' as they say?

Bangladesh Navy operates 101 vessels for the amount of coastal area. And we're just halfway done with our naval expansion and modernization.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_active_ships_of_the_Bangladesh_Navy

For its coastal area around India, 150+ IN vessels would seem rather thinly stretched.

This is a provisional plan of bay terminal in Patenga I posted a month ago. So many projects happening, that I can't keep all facts straight....:lol:

https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/partners-selected-to-develop-new-terminal-at-chittagong-port.507155/

Construction-of-Bay-Terminal-Chittagong.jpg

IN doesn't use its Surface fleet for merely patrolling purpose,which ICG's role.

ICG is possibly bigger than BN,both in number and tonnage of ships.

Meanwhile in IN -

11 Destroyers(5000-7500 tons class)
14 Frigates(3850-6200 tons)
23 corvettes
10 OPVs

These are just the major surface offensive units.I didn't included any support ships,patrol vessels,Subs and such.

Kindly remember,the kind of ships other countries use as frigates,we uses it for patrolling purposes.Our frigates are heavier than many destroyers serving around the world.
 
.
Back
Top Bottom