NationStates Jolt Archive

The Faestian state is looking to create a vast canal, environmentally friendly, to shorten traveling times from the regional med sea to the Atlantic.

As currently all local construction companies are allocating their resources to others endeavors(mainly schools, malls, ports, airports, military installations, corporate skyscrapers) there is a need to resort to external contractors.

The canal must begin its route near the Longbay port as outlined in the picture map included(in red color).
http://img119.imageshack.us/img119/598/longbaycanalrh9.png

We require that the damage to the environment will be minimal(under .2 percent throughout the route) and that the entire work will not exceed 25 years in construction.

The prices will be fixed and cannot be raised. The total cost will be divided and wired to the company receiving the contract, the last working day of each year.

The study must be concluded within a year and handed to us, with your offer.
The best offer will be selected and appointed to the winning company within three years of the first offer sent to us. Only one offer will be accepted, the first, with no revisions after you checkout later offers--to keep a balance and fairness.

On behalf of Faestian people,
Protomil Evangelo Mateon

Message from Bai engineering
we have deemed your canal to be, not impossible, but highly unfeasible with current technology. Nevertheless we must put forth our offer.

We propose a route the uses the Ebro River as the primary means of transport for a majority of the distance. This rive goes into the heart of spain and reaches a great distance closer to the atlantic. However, the main obstacle blocking this and any canal from working are the mountains to the north. The canal we propose will end up by the city of Bilao. Still the intended canal will be around 50 miles long (110 km) making the canal infesible with the amount of locks needed. Also there will be segnificant ecological damage from ships and the deepening of the Ebro river.

We highly suggest that you do not attempt this. it will ruin your country with the cost and the cost is no where near the benefit gained. We hope you will eliminate your plans for this canal and just use Gibraltar like all other countries.

the ecological damage is required because ships will leave oil and the amount of terraforming and earthmoving needed is significant enough to cause damage. We hope again you will reconsider your request.

Bai engineering

ICCD's EnviroGreen can take on this project.
Our Tender is $10 Trillion for the project over a period of 25 years Or approximately $400 Billion/year The payment plan would run 2 Trillion Intitial capital then 400 Billion Each year there after. All funds would be paid in ICCD via the Dian Banking system. Resources would be aquired locally and elsewhere as aquired. The local workforce would be employed as required and willing.

EnviroGreen is the #1 Dian Construction Firm and is specializes in Tunneling. For over 400 years in one form or another the Families of those who work in the company have been involved in precise mining operations.

Do not doubt this companies ability for enviornmental success, ICCD is a stunning nation whos citizens have nutured for hundreds of years. Mountains themselves may be used to help create basings for this project. Envirogreen has cooperated with companies such as MagmaTec in very large scale environmental projects. While the ecology is changed with such massive projects, many factors are taken into account to insure that there is no long term degredation or failure of the human habitat. The large scale of secondary projects such as aquiculture, power generation and other useful applications can be integrated into this project on an only marginal cost and time factor.

Drilling a 450 KM (200 mile) canal is no small undertaking. As driving that distance let alone tunneling would take some time. Depth is also taken into account. The project would be approached by mapping the best route then pilling up dirt levels or digging down to reduce the need for locks. The excess dirt and rock then can be used for other purposes later in the system to create baileys as required or a lining wall to create runoff out of the canal.

Effectively an artificial river is being made, but for shipping practicality the depth is the issue if doing a 70M deep trench, 40M would probably do most ships, by 200 Meters by 400KM that is a lot of space.

We are confident that a 25 year timeframe will be sufficient to do this on a basis of 16KM / year, if not more. The project would start inland and work both directions and till the seawalls are breached.

Vault-Tec Inc.

Greetings. We are from the Vault-Tec corporation, which has always prided itself on the fact that there's no project we can't undertake; for an appropriate cost.

As a matter of fact, our company is responsible for what was once considered impossible: the Vault Project, the construction of thousands of deep bunkers which allowed one nation to survive a massive nuclear war - a nation, in recognition of that project, now known as Vault 10.


We are specialized in underground construction, which, as a part of it, includes ground removal. Thus, we can fulfill your project, at a reasonable cost, and in a short time. We have decades of working with extreme-scale ground removal. By now, we can put it simply - it's what we do.

To give a precise estimate, we would only need you to tell us some detail:
* How wide should the canal be? You can specify width and depth, or just tell the approximate tonnage or size class of a ship that should pass through it.
* What is the ground constituted of? Is it sand, or peat, or rock, or another kind of soil?
* What is the exact length of the canal required?

We'll respond with specific cost and time requirements immediately after learning this information.

Respectfully,
Leonard Jameson,
Vault-Tec Inc.

To Protomil Evangelo Mateon,

We can build your canal for you. We have done a feasibility study, and these are the findings of said study. We have estimated your Canal to be approximately 200 miles. We have determined that it is possible to dig through the terrain you indicated, and that there should be no issues with that aspect of the project. We have also determined that we can complete this project with minimal environmental impact. We assure you that we will follow Best Management Practices toward the construction of the canal. We will address such issues as air and water pollution, storm water run-off, loss of vegetation, loss of biodiversity, erosion. We will limit the cutting of trees, us hydrogen powered vehicles, avoid the use of materials that will prevent storm water from being absorbed by the soil, and try to disturb as little wild life habitat as possible. Any trees we cut down, will be replaced following the completion of the canal. We have determined that we can have this project completed in 15 years, at a cost of $752,526,548,545.39 total.

Signed,
Jimmy James
CEO, Owner
James Digging Co.
(A division of Jimmy James Industries)

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v652/blaesa/header.jpg

Mr. Mateon,

Pale Rider Arms as a corporation has a vast amount of experience in large scale construction projects, from the Otagian National Superconducting Power Grid, to the Arbite City Arcological Project, to canal projects across the world. Our extensive experience and established (and easily portable) infrastructure make us the logical choice for your nation's project.

While we are currently unable to give an exact bid due to lack of precise data on the geography of the planned route, preliminary estimates would place the cost at roughly $60,000,000,000 over a period of ten years, for a 350 km canal cut to Panamax dimensions. Note that this cost assumes usage and expansion of existing waterways to lessen the impact on the environment and speed construction. Restrictions upon the usage of waterways, however, would result in cost increases, possibly by as much as 200%.

While these estimates rely primarily on unverified assumptions, we are confident that we will be able to fill your nation's needs. If our preliminary estimates are acceptable, please forward more precise data and we will happily adjust costs appropriately. We look forward to working with you in the future.Yours,Daniel Quetzal
CEO of Pale Rider Arms


OOC: Preliminary estimate is based on Spanish geography, including the Ebro River.

(OOC: using existing waterways would be damaging to those waterways ecosystems...)

(OOC:Well, for starters Faestos is not exactly Spain. And the land morphology is not exactly Spain either. Different events that prohibited Spain to happen in the land that is called Faestos, altered the land as well.)

Northern Faestos is mostly plain/forest, not mountainous, at least in the area concerned. Probably due to earthquakes, or volcanic activity or their combination. Also the main river throughout the land is Valiant, bigger than Ebro. Check out this map of how the area looks like(don't pay much attention to names given etc. It's an alternate history map a psychic consultant of the government present once. The geography is pretty accurate of Faestos though.)
http://img396.imageshack.us/img396/149/faestostopo2gc2.png


As you can see there is little rock in the route, mostly dirt(If taking the Ebro river route, one could take the suggested Valiant river route which needs little work in enlarging as it is a really big river, though taking Valiant's route there will probably be more ecological damage and the route will include mostly rocky/mountainous area).

Also the maximum class of ship that would need to pass would be the Panamax(Panama canal), however if that's deemed not pragmatic the best next size would be half the Panamax(We'll have to settle with what we can get).

As for pollution that comes after the canal is constructed, PPS(check our Factbook) has more than enough resources to clean it, as it uses already tested Bioremediation technology, our primary concern is how the current environment will be affected.(Besides this will be mainly used by Faestos ships that follow strict ecologic directives when built in order to really reduce pollution)

If needed there will be transfer of existing biodiversity to similar environments.
The cost is of no immediate importance to us, as we do not control Gibraltar and would like to have an auxiliary passage to that area if needed, not knowing the intentions of our neighbors regarding it.

(OOC: using existing waterways would be damaging to those waterways ecosystems...)
OOC: And cutting new channels would be damaging to the ecosystems that you just blew a giant hole through, bulldozed around, and polluted the hell out of during construction. It's going to happen either way, this way it gives a choice between one you'll have to look at every day or one hidden a couple dozen meters under water.

OOC: First of all, to prevent wrong assumptions, I'm not a canal expert, so I don't know perfectly what I'm talking about, but I'm a naval architect and remember some things from the college. And I've read a bit on excavation projects of various sizes when designing the Vault system of my nation. Just that, so I'm not talking entirely out of the top of my head, but won't sign under every word either. Only to clarify.


Vault-Tec Inc.

Thank you for your cooperation and the information provided.

We have analyzed the terrain data available, as well as expected shipping traffic, and came to the following conclusions:

* Construction of a canal suitable for Panamax vessels is feasible, both technically and economically.
* Length for efficient construction would range between approx. 120 to 200 nautical miles, or 230km to 370km depending on the route chosen.
* Potential savings from building a narrower canal would not be cost-effective, as it would cut off too many ships from passing. Already as of 1940, the Panama Canal locks size were a restriction to shipbuilding, both civilian and military. Most new international-route ships exceed the Panama Channel specifications, unless they are explicitly designed for routes passing through it.
* Immediate environmental damage from the project would be not insignificant. Widening and deepening either Ebro or Valiant, due to the removal of soil, would involve complete destruction of existing river's ecosystem and some damage to land ecosystems. Building a separate canal would do moderate harm to land ecosystems.
* Damage is not permanent, as the ecosystems would recover in time. The term is particularly short for land ecosystems, which can be artificially assisted to recreate in a few decades. Riverine ecosystems would have to recover naturally, nearly fully restoring in a few millenia.


Based on this, in general, we would recommend construction of a New-Panamax (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panama_Canal_expansion_project) capacity canal, as most effective, or even a Suezmax class (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suezmax) canal. While this will affect cost, the cost difference is not significant enough to make compromises sensible. Most of the expense in your terrain will be in removing elevated ground above sea level, rather than digging below it.

For minimal environmental effect, balanced with economical efficiency, we propose a compromise solution: construction of the canal in low parts of an existing river basin, but as a separate route. River and canal water bodies, of course, would be connected. Environmentally, it would preserve the fragile and difficult to recover river ecosystems, while land ecosystems would be relatively quickly and completely reconstructed.
Additionally, building a new canal means we won't have to block and dry out parts of the river when encountering hard soil or reinforcing the canal, thus saving time and money, and we can control surrounding soil strength, guaranteeing the canal's longevity without excessively widening it, ensuring low environmental impact.

Such a canal would, for most of its length, loosely follow Ebra river, as to circumvent the mountains, but cut straight through low-elevation terrain, keeping its length at 310 km. In order to allow the shipping traffic to traverse the canal at a high rate, the canal would be lock-less. We'll also pay additional attention to river crossings, to keep Ebra's basin still feeding it. While we see no way to quantify the damage exactly, the measures we're taking will keep it as low as possible.



At the proposed size, the main canal would allow guaranteed safe passage of ships with draft of 22.5 metres and beam of 75 metres. Maximum depth would be over 30 metres and maximum width over 200 metres, so ships can have higher draft and beam, but not simultaneously, due to the Canal's non-rectangular cross-section. To keep low the width and so work required, we'll work at a slope of up to 30 degrees, using concrete and rock soil reinforcement where necessary.
Maximum size of a ship capable of passing through the Canal, with typical dimensions, will be 220,000 DWT. This is over 2 times more than Old-Panamax, slightly more than New-Panamax, compatible with New-Suezmax, but less than Malaccamax.



We prefer to do the job quickly and efficiently, and so will work simultaneously in multiple sections along the canal. First, we will build a small pilot canal, 5 meter deep and 15 meter wide, concrete lined and sealed, elevated to a variable level, bridging rivers when necessary. This is a small task, easily done using local roads for access, within about 6 months.
Two sets of rails, standard gauge and special gauge for heavy machinery, would be laid on the side of this canal to facilitate access. Such an arrangement ensures that all environmental damage is minimized: a lot of the machinery would operate from rails.

The main Canal itself would be excavated using a semi-wet method. The heavy machinery required will be shipped through Ebra, the pilot canal, and pilot railroad, thus minimizing damage to the land distant from the canal. Once the machinery is in place, the excavated ground will be unloaded into the pilot canal, mixed with water, and pumped through it towards the sea.
Technologically, it's the fastest known method, and the most automated one. Economically, it's not much costlier than other methods, and economic benefits from opening the canal sooner will perhaps be greater than the extra expense. Environmentally, it means the excavation works will be nearly completely confined to the Canal itself, and land alongside it won't be significantly damaged. Additionally, the faster the work is done, the sooner the ecosystems can be recovered - by the time older and slower methods would only be finishing the construction, we would already have a young forest or a park alongside the canal. It's not in our style to waste any time.

Since this method allows for simultaneous construction in up to as many as 30 sections, the project can be finished in very short time if desired. At a rate of 50 meters per day in each of 12 sections, the shortest estimate would be about 18 months, although practically, since there always are unexpected delays, we would only count on 24-30 months.
The excavated ground can be used for a land reclamation project. We'll excavate about 4 billion cubic meters, which can expand the land by between 40 and 200 km^2, depending on required elevation and shape. The additional cost incurred by land expansion will be small. Again remembering the environment, we estimate that the damage to land ecosystems dealt by the construction can be mostly offset by assisted creation of new ecosystems on the newly created dry land. Excavated soil is well suitable for this purpose.


From our experience, we believe we can complete the entire project, together with coastal work, control and bridges, in between 3 and 5 years. Any longer than 5 years would be economically inefficient, while any less than 3 years is something we can try, but can't guarantee.

Since this is still a very major project, do not expect it to be particularly cheap, but we'll reduce the cost as much as we can without compromising quality and risking undesirable side impacts. To better understand our reasoning, we have prepared this budget estimate.


Preliminary work:
* Geological research: $2 billion
* Pilot canal - $60,000,000/km, 310km: $18 billion
** If built for 150+ years lifetime: $30 billion
* Pilot railroad system - $8,500,000/km, 320km: $3 billion
* Machinery shipping and transportation: $3 billion
* New machinery required: $12 billion
* Total preliminary work: $38 to $50 billion

Main canal:
* Ground removal:
** 50m average height, 320m average width, form coefficient 0.7
** 11,200m^2 removed ground cross-section
** For moderate soil, total removal cost is $30/m^3
** Per km: $336 million
* Reinforcement: $70,000,000/km
* Environmental damage mitigation: $35,000,000/km
* Total cost per km for main canal: $460 million
* Total main canal construction: $140 billion

* Widened zones (to allow for bidirectional use):
** Equiv. to 1.8km of canal each, est. 15 needed: $12 billion
* Coastal works (sea deepening), at each end: $8 billion
* Bridges:
** Air draft (height) 90m, full length 450m: $600 million each
** Estimated 10 needed: $6 billion total
* Permanent canal facilities construction: $16 million
* Other expenses: $10 billion
* Expected cost overrun: 10%-25%

Total expected cost: $268 to $375 billion


The total cost will depend on how fast the work will be done, on whether there are any changes to the number of bridges, and most of all on certain unpredictable factors. However, we guarantee not to exceed the maximum stated cost (as will be determined after the geological research and further specifics on facilities required), and cover extra expenses if that proves impossible.

We can also make the canal narrower and shallower, or wider and deeper. This will be reflected in the cost, but the effect is not proportional, since excavation itself is only a fraction of cost. For instance, our largest project, the Transit Channel, connecting Vault 10 Inner Sea with the ocean, has only cost 4 times more per km, despite allowing for nearly any ships and working through hard soil, including even a tunnel section. On the other hand, reducing the maximum displacement for ships in this canal by half would only reduce the cost by 12%.
As such, we believe the channel should be built to match the largest practical ship needing it, rather than compromise, since further expansion would be far costlier than building it to desired specifications from the beginning.

We are waiting for your answer, and any corrections or changes you would like to make to the project, concerning size, additional facilities, need for and specifics of a land expansion project, or other factors.


Respectfully,
Leonard Jameson,
Vault-Tec Inc.

OOC: First of all, to prevent wrong assumptions, I'm not a canal expert, so I don't know perfectly what I'm talking about, but I'm a naval architect and remember some things from the college. And I've read a bit on excavation projects of various sizes when designing the Vault system of my nation. Just that, so I'm not talking entirely out of the top of my head, but won't sign under every word either. Only to clarify.


Vault-Tec Inc.

Thank you for your cooperation and the information provided.

We have analyzed the terrain data available, as well as expected shipping traffic, and came to the following conclusions:

* Construction of a canal suitable for Panamax vessels is feasible, both technically and economically.
* Length for efficient construction would range between approx. 120 to 200 nautical miles, or 230km to 370km depending on the route chosen.
* Potential savings from building a narrower canal would not be cost-effective, as it would cut off too many ships from passing. Already as of 1940, the Panama Canal locks size were a restriction to shipbuilding, both civilian and military. Most new international-route ships exceed the Panama Channel specifications, unless they are explicitly designed for routes passing through it.
* Immediate environmental damage from the project would be not insignificant. Widening and deepening either Ebro or Valiant, due to the removal of soil, would involve complete destruction of existing river's ecosystem and some damage to land ecosystems. Building a separate canal would do moderate harm to land ecosystems.
* Damage is not permanent, as the ecosystems would recover in time. The term is particularly short for land ecosystems, which can be artificially assisted to recreate in a few decades. Riverine ecosystems would have to recover naturally, nearly fully restoring in a few millenia.


Based on this, in general, we would recommend construction of a New-Panamax (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panama_Canal_expansion_project) capacity canal, as most effective, or even a Suezmax class (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suezmax) canal. While this will affect cost, the cost difference is not significant enough to make compromises sensible. Most of the expense in your terrain will be in removing elevated ground above sea level, rather than digging below it.

For minimal environmental effect, balanced with economical efficiency, we propose a compromise solution: construction of the canal in low parts of an existing river basin, but as a separate route. River and canal water bodies, of course, would be connected. Environmentally, it would preserve the fragile and difficult to recover river ecosystems, while land ecosystems would be relatively quickly and completely reconstructed.
Additionally, building a new canal means we won't have to block and dry out the river, saving time and money, and we can control surrounding soil strength, guaranteeing the canal's longevity without excessively widening it, thus ensuring low environmental impact.

Such a canal would, for most of its length, loosely follow Ebra river, as to circumvent the mountains, but cut straight through low-elevation terrain, keeping its length at 310 km. In order to allow the shipping traffic to traverse the canal at a high rate, the canal would be lock-less. We'll also pay additional attention to river crossings, to keep Ebra's basin still feeding it. While we see no way to quantify the damage exactly, the measures we're taking will keep it as low as possible.



At the proposed size, the main canal would allow guaranteed safe passage of ships with draft of 22.5 metres and beam of 75 metres. Maximum depth would be over 30 metres and maximum width over 200 metres, so ships can have higher draft and beam, but not simultaneously, due to the Canal's non-rectangular cross-section. To keep low the width and so work required, we'll work at a slope of up to 30 degrees, using concrete and rock soil reinforcement where necessary.
Maximum size of a ship capable of passing through the Canal, with typical dimensions, will be 220,000 DWT. This is over 2 times more than Old-Panamax, slightly more than New-Panamax, compatible with New-Suezmax, but less than Malaccamax.



We prefer to do the job quickly and efficiently, and so will work simultaneously in multiple sections along the canal. First, we will build a small pilot canal, 5 meter deep and 15 meter wide, concrete lined and sealed, elevated to a variable level, bridging rivers when necessary. This is a small task, easily done using local roads for access, within about 6 months.
Two sets of rails, standard gauge and special gauge for heavy machinery, would be laid on the side of this canal to facilitate access. Such an arrangement ensures that all environmental damage is minimized: a lot of the machinery would operate from rails.

The main Canal itself would be excavated using a semi-wet method. The heavy machinery required will be shipped through Ebra, the pilot canal, and pilot railroad, thus minimizing damage to the land distant from the canal. Once the machinery is in place, the excavated ground will be unloaded into the pilot canal, mixed with water, and pumped through it towards the sea.
Technologically, it's the fastest known method, and the most automated one. Economically, it's not much costlier than other methods, and economic benefits from opening the canal sooner will perhaps be greater than the extra expense. Environmentally, it means the excavation works will be nearly completely confined to the Canal itself, and land alongside it won't be significantly damaged. Additionally, the faster the work is done, the sooner the ecosystems can be recovered - by the time older and slower methods would only be finishing the construction, we would already have a young forest or a park alongside the canal. It's not in our style to waste any time.

Since this method allows for simultaneous construction in up to as many as 30 sections, the project can be finished in very short time if desired. At a rate of 50 meters per day in each of 12 sections, the shortest estimate would be about 18 months, although practically, since there always are unexpected delays, we would only count on 24-30 months.
The excavated ground can be used for a land reclamation project. We'll excavate about 4 billion cubic meters, which can expand the land by between 40 and 200 km^2, depending on required elevation and shape. The additional cost incurred by land expansion will be small. Again remembering the environment, we estimate that the damage to land ecosystems dealt by the construction can be mostly offset by assisted creation of new ecosystems on the newly created dry land. Excavated soil is well suitable for this purpose.


From our experience, we believe we can complete the entire project, together with coastal work, control and bridges, in between 3 and 5 years. Any longer than 5 years would be economically inefficient, while any less than 3 years is something we can try, but can't guarantee.

Since this is still a very major project, do not expect it to be particularly cheap, but we'll reduce the cost as much as we can without compromising quality and risking undesirable side impacts. To better understand our reasoning, we have prepared this budget estimate.


Preliminary work:
* Geological research: $2 billion
* Pilot canal - $60,000,000/km, 310km: $18 billion
** If built for 150+ years lifetime: $30 billion
* Pilot railroad system - $8,500,000/km, 320km: $3 billion
* Machinery shipping and transportation: $3 billion
* New machinery required: $12 billion
* Total preliminary work: $38 to $50 billion

Main canal:
* Ground removal:
** 50m average height, 320m average width, form coefficient 0.7
** 11,200m^2 removed ground cross-section
** For moderate soil, total removal cost is $30/m^3
** Per km: $336 million
* Reinforcement: $70,000,000/km
* Environmental damage mitigation: $35,000,000/km
* Total cost per km for main canal: $460 million
* Total main canal construction: $140 billion

* Widened zones (to allow for bidirectional use):
** Equiv. to 1.8km of canal each, est. 15 needed: $12 billion
* Coastal works (sea deepening), at each end: $8 billion
* Bridges:
** Air draft (height) 90m, full length 450m: $600 million each
** Estimated 10 needed: $6 billion total
* Permanent canal facilities construction: $16 million
* Other expenses: $10 billion
* Expected cost overrun: 10%-25%

Total expected cost: $268 to $375 billion


The total cost will depend on how fast the work will be done, on whether there are any changes to the number of bridges, and most of all on certain unpredictable factors. However, we guarantee not to exceed the maximum stated cost (as will be determined after the geological research and further specifics on facilities required), and cover extra expenses if that proves impossible.

We can also make the canal narrower and shallower, or wider and deeper. This will be reflected in the cost, but the effect is not proportional, since excavation itself is only a fraction of cost. For instance, our largest project, the Transit Channel, connecting Vault 10 Inner Sea with the ocean, has only cost 4 times more per km, despite allowing for nearly any ships and working through hard soil, including even a tunnel section. On the other hand, reducing the maximum displacement for ships in this canal by half would only reduce the cost by 12%.
As such, we believe the channel should be built to match the largest practical ship needing it, rather than compromise, since further expansion would be far costlier than building it to desired specifications from the beginning.

We are waiting for your answer, and any corrections or changes you would like to make to the project, concerning size, additional facilities, need for and specifics of a land expansion project, or other factors.


Respectfully,
Leonard Jameson,
Vault-Tec Inc.


Greetings all.

On behalf of the council of nine, and Faestos people, we would like to express our delight with your proposal and the deriving outcome to Faestos, the accessibility to the ocean, the environment and our funds.

We closely examined all the proposals made, and the people decided that, though there were many good offers, yours is the best beginning from the study to the proposed execution. We wish to thank all the contributors that came up with a proposal and hope to do business with in the future, there will certainly be other opportunities, as Faestos discovers there are difficult problems that require ingenious solutions in our land.

The people for a while were reluctant to destroy the environment as much as it seems inevitable, but the greater need for the canal and the faith of the people they can eventually repair the environment to a satisfactory degree, or at least compensate for it through the newly allocated land stripes for the creation of "Paradise Parks" to which part of the potentially harmed biodiversity will be transfered, finally prevailed.

After the work on the canal is finished, were possible, the flora and fauna will be transfered back for restoration purposes(though we expect there will be offspring we shall be keeping inside the no human intervention "Paradise Parks" for their own good.

The proposed total of 375 billion we understand can be covered by our current budget and we prefer for your company to take the slower construction route, in order for us to have more time to transfer biodiversity with less damage to the environment the rushed method would possibly result in. For this reason and understanding you might be needing some of the allocated resources for other projects as soon as possible, the people of Faestos have decided to offer a bonus and increase your total income to 400 billion.

It seems the optimal for both sides amount of construction time will be that of 5 years. We would like the payment plan to be gradual and specifically:
USD $100 billion for the first year, $75 billion for each subsequent year each payed the first working day of each year, with the exception of the final year for which there will be two installments; $ 35 billion on the beginning of the year and the rest as soon as the construction is final.

If you agree, please respond, so we can start wiring the money to your account.

Regards,
-Omil Bianca Archos
Council member responsible for Environmental issues
-Omil Petro Ferreira
Council member responsible for Construction works

(OOC: The only potential problem would be if you're not MT, I could get trouble in my region for this, they follow some very strict rules I'm still trying to learn, as they're not written anywhere)

OOC: I'm fully MT, even a bit stricter than most. Although the nation is unusual, but no one said all MT nations have to be like RL ones. As for technology, the speed comes from working in multiple sections - not rush. The reason it isn't usually done IRL is mainly that the projects are one-off, and equipment wouldn't be reused, plus the budgets are less flexible.

About land reclama


Vault-Tec Inc.

Thanks for choosing our company; we believe you've made the right choice.

Your payment plan is perfectly satisfactory. We'll start the first stages of the preliminary work, specifically geological study of the terrain and soil, and shipment of equipment for the pilot canal construction, in a few days.


Additionally, we'd need to know where and how you would prefer to use the excavated ground. It will be transported towards the sea in any case, and, since it is excavated, it makes sense to use it for land reclamation (artificial island, peninsula, or just land expansion), but we can transport it to either the North-Western or the South-Eastern end of the Canal. The area of land reclaimed would be between 40 and 200 square kilometres, depending on sea depth at the point (less area for an island, more for peninsula).

If we know the specific use, also, it will be possible to load the upper fertile soil on the trains, to deposit it later on top of the clay and sand foundation, creating land suitable for replanting trees or other plants.


Respectfully,
Leonard Jameson,
Vault-Tec Inc.

That is of interest to us.
We ARE looking to eventually create an artificial island to the north of our land, for tourism purposes and this seems a perfect opportunity to do so.
A map of the area(the area we'd prefer the island placed, in red color)

http://img45.imageshack.us/img45/3674/scorpiork3.png

We understand it would be close to 40 km2?

What would be the extras needed? Additional costs?

Regards,
-Omil Bianca Archos
Council member responsible for Environmental issues
-Omil Petro Ferreira
Council member responsible for Construction works

Vault-Tec Inc.

The costs of an artificial island project, if built simultaneously with the canal, reusing excavated ground, are much smaller than they would be otherwise. This was the reason we suggested land reclamation, to prevent wasting the soil.
Most of the costs would include the construction of a temporary bridge, elongation of the pilot canal and pilot railroad, use of specialized marine equipment, and soil reinforcement.

The proposed location is suitable, although not optimal, as it would be better to work at shallower depths. If shifted somewhat, the area would be about 80km^2, using both moved seabed and land from the canal.

Additional costs for the island would be around 14 billion for the raw elevation of the seabed, and 6 more for top soil deposition and reinforcement, thus about 20 billion total.


Respectfully,
Leonard Jameson,
Vault-Tec Inc.

Excellent. Let's do so then and shift it accordingly to increase the surface area.
The funds will be wired to your account, along with the final installment of the canal payment plan.

Btw, the work done is on New-Suezmax compatible for the canal?
We didn't have time to oversee the work being done yet.

Regards,
-Omil Petro Ferreira
Council member responsible for Construction works

Vault-Tec Inc.

Yes, the work is in progress. We're currently in the stage of preliminary work.


Respectfully,
Leonard Jameson,
Vault-Tec Inc.




[OOC:
P.S. I don't RP in a fixed timescale, most times I'm between 1:1 and 1:30, too slow for this, so it's up to you to decide the timescale for yourself. ]

(OOC: That's ok I'm not fixed either. Whenever I drop online for other things I take a look around. Unfortunately some of the time the forum will be down).

Reports all over arrive daily in our offices with your excellent work. We're very pleased. We bookmarked your company's site for future reference were needs be . :)

Regards,
-Omil Petro Ferreira
Council member responsible for Construction works

It's a great day for Faestos. First ship, a cargo loaded with exotic fruit and some equipment, passes through the finished canal. No problems during travel. We're glad we waited the extra time needed for testing all scenarios to avoid accidents!

First stop will be the newly created artificial island of Scorpion and then overseas lands.

We wish to greatly thank Vault-Tec Inc., and Leonard Jameson personally for their superb work.