2008-06-13

Echoes: 2 pieces of news on Taiwan (and how much was wasted by the HKG ATC detour)



Some old posts were echoed today.

1) I blogged a couple years ago about the problem of Japan in the gas field in East China Sea. i.e. it is very costly and impractical to build pipe over the 3000m deep Okinawa trench separting the field and Okinawa.

There is a new analysis over the internet by a Taiwanese analyst recently


  • 我们从这张图可以清楚看到在东海的争议区除了钓鱼岛没有其他岛屿,所以归属权完全决定於海底的结构。图中显示整个东海大陆架完全是中国大陆的海底延伸一直到琉球海沟,平均深度 370公尺。钓鱼岛非常清楚是在东海的大陆架上。
    琉球群岛西边深蓝色的海域就是着名的琉球海沟,深度2940公尺。

    我们看到整个东海大陆架非常整齐地被琉球海沟切断。所以东海大陆架是非常完整而连贯的从大陆海岸线延伸到琉球海沟,按照国际海洋法的规定,这整片大陆架完全归属中国。

  • 日本根本不可能独自开发东海的天然气
    图1的右上角是一个大范围的海底地形图,不但包括东海也包括黄海、渤海、还有日本海。从这个地形图读者很清楚看到琉球海沟是从台湾的东北角开始一直伸延到日本九州岛的西北角。也就是说琉球海沟彻底把日本的从东海大陆架分隔出去。
    天然气不比石油。海上油井可以附设储油槽,然後由油轮运到世界各处。天然气则不然。海上气井开发後必须建立输送管到用户。
    「春晓气田」距离浙江宁波大约 350公里,输气管长 450公里,输送途径是浅海,虽然成本高一点但没有任何技术问题。
    但是对日本而言,任何东海大陆架的天然气田即使能够开发出来也无法运到日本,因为输气管不但长达千里,而且输送途径中间有琉球海沟无法跨越。日本唯一的办法就是建一个海上天然气的液化工厂,然後用船将液化天然气运走。但是在大海上建立天然气液化工厂以目前的技术根本不可能。
    东海的天然气日本即使看得到也吃不到。
    所以不论是从国际法的角度,还是从技术开发的角度,日本要在东海天然气田上分一杯羹都是痴心妄想。

    海上开采油气的费用非常高昂,勘探、测量、钻井、 设管线不但样样都是钱,而且具有高风险。举个例子,在三百五十公尺深的海域钻井,每一个勘探井的花费是三千万美元,能不能出油或出气还不知道。中国在东海大陆架作出巨大的投资与艰苦的工作,日本只在旁边看。
    日本原来的计算是认为中国东海的天然气田要在2010年以後才会投产,所以打算等待中国什麽都开发完成以後再来争。日本要捡现成的便宜,而不要担一分的风险。但是日本没有想到中国的开发速度很快,在2005年便建成投产,於是眼睛立刻就红了,抢着提出要求分一杯羹。
    其实中国完全不必理会日本的无理要求,因为日本根本不具有开发东海油气田的条件与技术。日本想用叁股的方法来分一杯羹实在是可气又可笑。日本的要求属於“见者有份”的强盗行为。


I wouldn't use such emotion words as that analyst. But that is pretty much the logic of why Japan's negotiation chips are not much.


2) I also blogged about how wasteful it is to detour the flights from mainland cities to those in Taiwan.

A few pro-DPP commentators tried to shift the blame to mainland regarding this issue of 'straightening the path 去弯取直'. Today finally it is widely reported in the media. I hope these political nonsense be gone in a few months.

  • 台 構 思 兩 岸 設 專 用 航 線
    昨日 兩 岸 兩 會 提 出 直 航 航 線 為 「 截 彎 取 直 」 , 不 必 再 繞 經 港 澳 或 韓 國 航 區 , 改 為 直 接飛 越 台 海 。 但 此 建 議 在 台 灣 引 起 反 對 , 故 下 月 4 日 的 包 機 仍 會 是 採 用 節 日 包 機 , 繞經 港 澳 的 航 線 飛 行 。 而 台 灣 民 航 局 正 計 劃 開 闢 新 的 航 線 以 「 截 彎 取 直 」 , 其中 一 個 構 思 是 兩 岸 在 南 北 各 畫 設 一 條 專 用 航 線 供 周 末 包 機 飛 航 , 該 航 線 不 會 直 接 跨越 台 海 中 線 , 可 避 免 軍 方 反 對 , 比 起 現 時 節 日 包 機 須 繞 經 港 澳 航 區 , 此 航 線 在 飛 航時 間 及 營 運 成 本 上 , 都 有 很 大 的 節 省 空 間 。 但 因 未 獲 台 軍 方 同 意 , 以 及 還 未 與 大 陸方 面 協 商 , 有 關 計 劃 仍 在 研 究 當 中 。 台 灣 《 蘋 果 日 報 》
    台 軍 方 反 對 飛 越 台 海
    周末 包 機 直 航 是 此 次 兩 會 協 商 主 要 議 題 之 一 。 台 灣 軍 方 前 晚 重 申 , 同 意 包 機 分 別 沿 南北 國 際 航 線 進 入 台 北 飛 航 情 報 區 , 但 反 對 直 接 穿 越 台 海 的 立 場 沒 有 改 變 。 所 謂 「 截彎 取 直 」 , 即 兩 岸 點 對 點 直 飛 , 取 代 現 繞 經 香 港 或 日 本 海 域 的 航 線 , 台 軍 方 擔 心 直飛 後 一 旦 兩 岸 起 戰 事 , 對 大 陸 戰 機 犯 台 無 法 有 足 夠 時 間 預 警 。
    「 拿 西 裝 換 人 家 內 褲 」
    台民 航 局 副 局 長 林 信 得 昨 日 表 示 , 直 航 構 想 「 仍 在 做 功 課 」 , 需 要 與 國 防 部 商 討 取 得共 識 , 由 陸 委 會 拍 板 。 民 進 黨 昨 日 則 狂 批 , 江 丙 坤 等 都 是 與 中 國 有 龐 大 利 益 關 係 者, 提 出 「 截 彎 取 直 」 是 「 拿 西 裝 換 人 家 內 褲 」 。

DPP politicians invented a funny analogy for trading direct flight for its rather ill-defined 'security issue': "Suits for underwear".

Since the DPP claim to be a pro-environmental "Green" party. We shall examine how green this trade-off amounts to (ignoring the costs of the time wasted by businessmen/travellers for the time being)

Now. Let's estimate the amount of gasoline wasted on this DPP's new suit. For the planned 18 flights per day (there are over 30 flights between HK and Taiwan each day, of which more than half are transits into the mainland), this would mean (excluding ex-Guangzhou's 3 flights/day) 15x700x2=21000miles of trips waster. i.e. 105,000 gallons per day (5 gallon per mile), or 37,000,000 gallon per year. At US$4/gallon (this week) it is $138m/year.

Go figure how green DPP is, and how much gas has been wasted in the past 8(+) years.

6 comments:

Anonymous said...

You just don't like Taiwanese independence and the DPP. Of all the things you could attack the DPP for, you call a security policy environmentally unfriendly. The point is obviously because there's a security problem with cluttering the airspace with passenger planes. I'm not too big on a fighter jet hiding behind a passenger outright, but you can't seriously argue that an airspace where you have to distinguish between passenger and military planes is just as easy to secure as one where you can safely assume anything flying across the airspace is military.

How pro-environment the DPP really was in the past eight years is a good question to ask, and an even better one would be whether the KMT can do any better or whether they are going to be beholden to public opinion, Formosa Plastics, and China Steel.

Also, the DPP has been for direct flights. The problem was that China wasn't willing to give it to a bunch of "separatists". Taiwan needs it a lot more than China, and China wasn't going to give a goody to the DPP.

Anonymous said...

Basically my point was that the amount of fuel "wasted" really isn't much in the grand scheme of things, and if you were only going to optimize for the environment, three links is going to only increase people riding on planes and so overall is creating more pollution and CO2. Again, your argument is quite silly.

Anonymous said...

So to the double anon above, maybe the best environmental solution would be to have no planes flying in or out of Taiwan at all?

And maybe the best security solution would also be to have no planes flying in or out of Taiwan at all?

And then you ruin it all by suggesting that the DPP were actually for direct flights despite the 'security policy' :-)

Anonymous said...

From one anon to another:

You are really on my side and disagree with Sunbin too. Read over what you wrote. My point was that you are optimizing for multiple goals. One, the economy, two, the environment, three, security. You agree with me as you show the stupidity of only optimizing for one variable to the extreme.

Also, direct flights has been taken to mean not having to land and transfer at a third site. This was a part of Frank Hsieh's platform, so I don't why you are putting that in scare quotes. Flights to Beijing would have been straight anyways. The point is to not clutter up the airspace right across the Taiwan Strait so that a surprise attack would have a longer lead time and could be responded to. It's still a direct flight even if it has to take a 20 minute or so detour to the north for security reasons. In fact, most flights aren't completely straight lines anyways, taking into account large metropolitan areas, military air spaces, sometimes environmental reasons, etc. Are you going to call those non-direct flights too? Stop playing word games, direct flights in the context of Taiwan and China has a meaning already even when the flight path isn't completely straight.

Sun Bin said...

anon1,

The evidence for DPP's blocking direct flight (or tried to make it as inconvenient as possible) is the fact that they do not simply want to avoid flying over the strait. When the first CA flight arrived early 3 years ago, by barely touching the HK ATC, DPP cried foul even when that plane did not cross any defense sensitive area.

You need to explain this to defend your argument.

Anonymous said...

I'm anon3, and am responding to anon4 - who I believe is also anon1 and 2...

Firstly, let's start with the security argument anyway. The idea of cluttered airspace, or even civilian/military co-mingling is there for fear factor only. How often has a civilian craft been cover for a military plane? Shootdown incidents of civil planes by the USA, Israel and Russia should tell you that paranoia rules the roost here over commonsense.

Secondly, you call it 'optimizing for multiple goals'. I call it an inconsistent flip-flop. If you want limited planes flying over in a narrow corridor so they can be 'scanned' for foes you basically want limited, onerously plotted traffic. You kill the economic advantage, while also losing the environmental advantage that you could otherwise have gained from having few flights.

The 'stupidity' solution I outlined actually optimises two of the goals you mentioned - security and the environment. That such a solution isn't on the cards shows that all the parties recognise it would be economic suicide. The KMT chose to maximize the economic goal, and the public chose them - perhaps because they can see the security goal is not really affected by direct, cross-straits flights. The DPP tried to cling to an impotent remnant of the security goal while not maximising the economic goal AND flunking the environment. They didn't show the 'stupidity of only optimizing for one variable', but instead flip-flopped on all three.