document_title: Board of directors

question_text: what are the titles of a board of directors

question_tokens: what are the titles of a board of directors

text: Board of directors

text: Terminology[edit]

text: Other names include board of directors and advisors, board of governors, board of managers, board of regents, board of trustees, or board of visitors. It may also be called "the executive board" and is often simply referred to as "the board".[4]

text: Roles[edit]

text:
Business administration

Management of a business

Accounting[show]

Management accounting
Financial accounting
Financial audit

Business entities[show]

Cooperative
Corporation
Limited liability company
Partnership
Sole proprietorship
State-owned enterprise

Corporate governance[show]

Annual general meeting
Board of directors
Supervisory board
Advisory board
Audit committee

Corporate law[show]

Commercial law
Constitutional documents
Contract
Corporate crime
Corporate liability
Insolvency law
International trade law
Mergers and acquisitions

Economics[show]

Commodity
Public economics
Labour economics
Development economics
International economics
Mixed economy
Planned economy
Econometrics
Environmental economics
Open economy
Market economy
Knowledge economy
Microeconomics
Macroeconomics
Economic development
Economic statistics

Finance[show]

Financial statement
Insurance
Factoring
Cash conversion cycle
Insider dealing
Capital budgeting
Commercial bank
Derivative
Financial statement analysis
Financial risk
Public finance
Corporate finance
Managerial finance
International finance
Liquidation
Stock market
Financial market
Tax
Financial institution
Working capital
Venture capital

Marketing[show]

Marketing
Marketing research
Public relations
Sales

Types of management[show]

Asset
Brand
Business intelligence
Business development
Capacity
Change

innovation

Commercial

marketing

Communications
Configuration
Conflict
Content
Customer relationship
Distributed
Earned value
Electronic business
Enterprise resource planning

management information system

Financial
Human resource

development

Incident
Integrated
Knowledge
Materials
Network

administrator

Office
Operations

services

Performance
Power
Problem
Process
Product life-cycle
Product
Project
Quality
Records
Resource
Risk

crisis

Sales
Security
Service
Strategic
Supply chain
Systems

administrator

Talent
Technology

Organization[show]

Architecture
Behavior
Communication
Culture
Conflict
Development
Engineering
Hierarchy
Patterns
Space
Structure

Trade[show]

Business analysis
Business ethics
Business plan
Business judgment rule
Consumer behaviour
Business operations
International business
Business model
International trade
Business process
Business statistics

 Business and economics portal

v
t
e

text: Typical duties of boards of directors include:[5][6]

text:
governing the organization by establishing broad policies and setting out strategic objectives;
selecting, appointing, supporting and reviewing the performance of the chief executive (of which the titles vary from organization to organization; the chief executive may be titled chief executive officer, president or executive director);
terminating the chief executive;
ensuring the availability of adequate financial resources;
approving annual budgets;
accounting to the stakeholders for the organization's performance;
setting the salaries, compensation and benefits of senior management;

text: The legal responsibilities of boards and board members vary with the nature of the organization, and between jurisdictions. For companies with publicly trading stock, these responsibilities are typically much more rigorous and complex than for those of other types.

text: Typically, the board chooses one of its members to be the chairman (more usually now called the "chair" or "chairperson"), who holds whatever title is specified in the bylaws or articles of association. However, in membership organizations, the members elect the president of the organization and the president becomes the chair of the board, unless the bylaws say otherwise.[7]

text: Directors[edit]

text: The directors of an organization are the persons who are members of its board. Several specific terms categorize directors by the presence or absence of their other relationships to the organization.[8]

text: Inside director[edit]

text: An inside director is a director who is also an employee, officer, chief executive, major shareholder, or someone similarly connected to the organization. Inside directors represent the interests of the entity's stakeholders, and often have special knowledge of its inner workings, its financial or market position, and so on.

text: Typical inside directors are:

text:
A chief executive officer (CEO) who may also be chairman of the board
Other executives of the organization, such as its chief financial officer (CFO) or executive vice president
Large shareholders (who may or may not also be employees or officers)
Representatives of other stakeholders such as labor unions, major lenders, or members of the community in which the organization is located

text: An inside director who is employed as a manager or executive of the organization is sometimes referred to as an executive director (not to be confused with the title executive director sometimes used for the CEO position in some organizations). Executive directors often have a specified area of responsibility in the organization, such as finance, marketing, human resources, or production.[9]

text: Outside director[edit]

text: An outside director is a member of the board who is not otherwise employed by or engaged with the organization, and does not represent any of its stakeholders. A typical example is a director who is president of a firm in a different industry.[10] Outside directors are not employees of the company or affiliated with it in any other way.

text: Outside directors bring outside experience and perspectives to the board. For example, for a company that only serves a domestic market, the presence of CEOs from global multinational corporations as outside directors can help to provide insights on export and import opportunities and international trade options. One of the arguments for having outside directors is that they can keep a watchful eye on the inside directors and on the way the organization is run. Outside directors are unlikely to tolerate "insider dealing" between insider directors, as outside directors do not benefit from the company or organization. Outside directors are often useful in handling disputes between inside directors, or between shareholders and the board. They are thought to be advantageous because they can be objective and present little risk of conflict of interest. On the other hand, they might lack familiarity with the specific issues connected to the organization's governance and they might not know about the industry or sector in which the organization is operating.

text: Terminology [edit]

text:
Director – a person appointed to serve on the board of an organization, such as an institution or business.
Inside director – a director who, in addition to serving on the board, has a meaningful connection to the organization
Outside director – a director who, other than serving on the board, has no meaningful connections to the organization
Executive director – an inside director who is also an executive with the organization. The term is also used, in a completely different sense, to refer to a CEO
Non-executive director – an inside director who is not an executive with the organization
Shadow or de facto director – an individual who is not a named director but who nevertheless directs or controls the organization
Nominee director – an individual who is appointed by a shareholder, creditor or interest group (whether contractually or by resolution at a company meeting) and who has a continuing loyalty to the appointor/s or other interest in the appointing company

text: Individual directors often serve on more than one board.[11] This practice results in an interlocking directorate, where a relatively small number of individuals have significant influence over a large number of important entities. This situation can have important corporate, social, economic, and legal consequences, and has been the subject of significant research.[citation needed]

text: Process and structure[edit]

text: The process for running a board, sometimes called the board process, includes the selection of board members, the setting of clear board objectives, the dissemination of documents or board package to the board members, the collaborative creation of an agenda for the meeting, the creation and follow-up of assigned action items, and the assessment of the board process through standardized assessments of board members, owners, and CEOs.[12] The science of this process has been slow to develop due to the secretive nature of the way most companies run their boards, however some standardization is beginning to develop. Some who are pushing for this standardization in the USA are the National Association of Corporate Directors, McKinsey Consulting and The Board Group.

text: Board meetings[edit]

text: A board of directors conducts its meetings according to the rules and procedures contained in its governing documents. These procedures may allow the board to conduct its business by conference call or other electronic means.[13] They may also specify how a quorum is to be determined.[13]

text: Most organizations have adopted Robert's Rules of Order as its guide to supplement its own rules[where?].[14] In this book, the rules for conducting board meetings may be less formal if there is no more than about a dozen board members present.[15] An example of the informality is that motions are not required if it's clear what is being discussed.[16]

text: Size[edit]

text: Historically, nonprofit boards have not uncommonly had large boards with up to twenty-four members, but a modern trend is to have smaller boards as small as six or seven people.[17] Studies suggest that after seven people, each additional person reduces the effectiveness of group-decision-making.[17]

text: Non-corporate boards[edit]

text: The role and responsibilities of a board of directors vary depending on the nature and type of business entity and the laws applying to the entity (see types of business entity). For example, the nature of the business entity may be one that is traded on a public market (public company), not traded on a public market (a private, limited or closely held company), owned by family members (a family business), or exempt from income taxes (a non-profit, not for profit, or tax-exempt entity). There are numerous types of business entities available throughout the world such as a corporation, limited liability company, cooperative, business trust, partnership, private limited company, and public limited company.

text: Much of what has been written about boards of directors relates to boards of directors of business entities actively traded on public markets.[18] More recently, however, material is becoming available for boards of private and closely held businesses including family businesses.[19]

text: A board-only organization is one whose board is self-appointed, rather than being accountable to a base of members through elections; or in which the powers of the membership are extremely limited.[citation needed]

text: Membership organizations[edit]

text: In membership organizations, such as a society made up of members of a certain profession or one advocating a certain cause, a board of directors may have the responsibility of running the organization in between meetings of the membership, especially if the membership meets infrequently, such as only at an annual general meeting.[20] The amount of powers and authority delegated to the board depend on the bylaws and rules of the particular organization. Some organizations place matters exclusively in the board's control while in others, the general membership retains full power and the board can only make recommendations.[4]

text: The setup of a board of directors vary widely across organizations and may include provisions that are applicable to corporations, in which the "shareholders" are the members of the organization. A difference may be that the membership elects the officers of the organization, such as the president and the secretary, and the officers become members of the board in addition to the directors and retain those duties on the board.[7] The directors may also be classified as officers in this situation.[21] There may also be ex-officio members of the board, or persons who are members due to another position that they hold. These ex-officio members have all the same rights as the other board members.[22]

text: Members of the board may be removed before their term is complete. Details on how they can be removed are usually provided in the bylaws. If the bylaws do not contain such details, the section on disciplinary procedures in Robert's Rules of Order may be used.[23]

text: Corporations[edit]

text: In a publicly held company, directors are elected to represent and are legally obligated as fiduciaries to represent owners of the company—the shareholders/stockholders. In this capacity they establish policies and make decisions on issues such as whether there is dividend and how much it is, stock options distributed to employees, and the hiring/firing and compensation of upper management.

text: Governance[edit]

text: Theoretically, the control of a company is divided between two bodies: the board of directors, and the shareholders in general meeting. In practice, the amount of power exercised by the board varies with the type of company. In small private companies, the directors and the shareholders are normally the same people, and thus there is no real division of power. In large public companies, the board tends to exercise more of a supervisory role, and individual responsibility and management tends to be delegated downward to individual professional executives (such as a finance director or a marketing director) who deal with particular areas of the company's affairs.[24]

text: Another feature of boards of directors in large public companies is that the board tends to have more de facto power. Many shareholders grant proxies to the directors to vote their shares at general meetings and accept all recommendations of the board rather than try to get involved in management, since each shareholder's power, as well as interest and information is so small. Larger institutional investors also grant the board proxies. The large number of shareholders also makes it hard for them to organize. However, there have been moves recently to try to increase shareholder activism among both institutional investors and individuals with small shareholdings.[24]

text: A contrasting view is that in large public companies it is upper management and not boards that wield practical power, because boards delegate nearly all of their power to the top executive employees, adopting their recommendations almost without fail. As a practical matter, executives even choose the directors, with shareholders normally following management recommendations and voting for them.

text: In most cases, serving on a board is not a career unto itself. For major corporations, the board members are usually professionals or leaders in their field. In the case of outside directors, they are often senior leaders of other organizations. Nevertheless, board members often receive remunerations amounting to hundreds of thousands of dollars per year since they often sit on the boards of several companies. Inside directors are usually not paid for sitting on a board, but the duty is instead considered part of their larger job description. Outside directors are usually paid for their services. These remunerations vary between corporations, but usually consist of a yearly or monthly salary, additional compensation for each meeting attended, stock options, and various other benefits. such as travel, hotel and meal expenses for the board meetings. Tiffany & Co., for example, pays directors an annual retainer of $46,500, an additional annual retainer of $2,500 if the director is also a chairperson of a committee, a per-meeting-attended fee of $2,000 for meetings attended in person, a $500 fee for each meeting attended via telephone, in addition to stock options and retirement benefits.[25]

text: Two-tier system[edit]

text: In some European and Asian countries, there are two separate boards, an executive board for day-to-day business and a supervisory board (elected by the shareholders and employees) for supervising the executive board. In these countries, the CEO (chief executive or managing director) presides over the executive board and the chairman presides over the supervisory board, and these two roles will always be held by different people. This ensures a distinction between management by the executive board and governance by the supervisory board and allows for clear lines of authority. The aim is to prevent a conflict of interest and too much power being concentrated in the hands of one person. There is a strong parallel here with the structure of government, which tends to separate the political cabinet from the management civil service. In the United States, the board of directors (elected by the shareholders) is often equivalent to the supervisory board, while the executive board may often be known as the executive committee (operating committee or executive council), composed of the CEO and their direct reports (other C-level officers, division/subsidiary heads).

text: History[edit]

text: The examples and perspective in this section deal primarily with the United Kingdom and do not represent a worldwide view of the subject. You may improve this article, discuss the issue on the talk page, or create a new article, as appropriate. (April 2016) (Learn how and when to remove this template message)

text: The development of a separate board of directors to manage/govern/oversee a company has occurred incrementally and indefinitely over legal history. Until the end of the 19th century, it seems to have been generally assumed that the general meeting (of all shareholders) was the supreme organ of a company, and that the board of directors merely acted as an agent of the company subject to the control of the shareholders in general meeting.[30]

text: However, by 1906, the English Court of Appeal had made it clear in the decision of Automatic Self-Cleansing Filter Syndicate Co Ltd v Cuninghame [1906] 2 Ch 34 that the division of powers between the board and the shareholders in general meaning depended on the construction of the articles of association and that, where the powers of management were vested in the board, the general meeting could not interfere with their lawful exercise. The articles were held to constitute a contract by which the members had agreed that "the directors and the directors alone shall manage."[31]

text: The new approach did not secure immediate approval, but it was endorsed by the House of Lords in Quin & Axtens v Salmon [1909] AC 442 and has since received general acceptance. Under English law, successive versions of Table A have reinforced the norm that, unless the directors are acting contrary to the law or the provisions of the Articles, the powers of conducting the management and affairs of the company are vested in them.

text: The modern doctrine was expressed in John Shaw & Sons (Salford) Ltd v Shaw [1935] 2 KB 113 by Greer LJ as follows:

text: A company is an entity distinct alike from its shareholders and its directors. Some of its powers may, according to its articles, be exercised by directors, certain other powers may be reserved for the shareholders in general meeting. If powers of management are vested in the directors, they and they alone can exercise these powers. The only way in which the general body of shareholders can control the exercise of powers by the articles in the directors is by altering the articles, or, if opportunity arises under the articles, by refusing to re-elect the directors of whose actions they disapprove. They cannot themselves usurp the powers which by the articles are vested in the directors any more than the directors can usurp the powers vested by the articles in the general body of shareholders.

text: It has been remarked[by whom?] that this development in the law was somewhat surprising at the time, as the relevant provisions in Table A (as it was then) seemed to contradict this approach rather than to endorse it.[32]

text: Election and removal[edit]

text: In most legal systems, the appointment and removal of directors is voted upon by the shareholders in general meeting[a] or through a proxy statement. For publicly traded companies in the U.S., the directors which are available to vote on are largely selected by either the board as a whole or a nominating committee.[33] Although in 2002 the New York Stock Exchange and the NASDAQ required that nominating committees consist of independent directors as a condition of listing,[34] nomination committees have historically received input from management in their selections even when the CEO does not have a position on the board.[33] Shareholder nominations can only occur at the general meeting itself or through the prohibitively expensive process of mailing out ballots separately; in May 2009 the SEC proposed a new rule allowing shareholders meeting certain criteria to add nominees to the proxy statement.[35] In practice for publicly traded companies, the managers (inside directors) who are purportedly accountable to the board of directors have historically played a major role in selecting and nominating the directors who are voted on by the shareholders, in which case more "gray outsider directors" (independent directors with conflicts of interest) are nominated and elected.[33]

text: Directors may also leave office by resignation or death. In some legal systems, directors may also be removed by a resolution of the remaining directors (in some countries they may only do so "with cause"; in others the power is unrestricted).

text: Some jurisdictions also permit the board of directors to appoint directors, either to fill a vacancy which arises on resignation or death, or as an addition to the existing directors.(needs citation)

text: In practice, it can be quite difficult to remove a director by a resolution in general meeting. In many legal systems, the director has a right to receive special notice of any resolution to remove him or her;[b] the company must often supply a copy of the proposal to the director, who is usually entitled to be heard by the meeting.[c] The director may require the company to circulate any representations that he wishes to make.[d] Furthermore, the director's contract of service will usually entitle him to compensation if he is removed, and may often include a generous "golden parachute" which also acts as a deterrent to removal.[citation needed]

text: A recent study examines how corporate shareholders voted in director elections in the United States.[36] It found that directors received fewer votes from shareholders when their companies performed poorly, had excess CEO compensation, or had poor shareholder protection. Also, directors received fewer votes when they did not regularly attend board meetings or received negative recommendations from a proxy advisory firm. The study also shows that companies often improve their corporate governance by removing poison pills or classified boards and by reducing excessive CEO pay after their directors receive low shareholder support.[37]

text: Board accountability to shareholders is a recurring issue. In 2010, the New York Times noted that several directors who had overseen companies which had failed in the financial crisis of 2007–2010 had found new positions as directors.[38] The SEC sometimes imposes a ban (a "D&O bar") on serving on a board as part of its fraud cases, and one of these was upheld in 2013.[39]

text: Exercise of powers[edit]

text: The exercise by the board of directors of its powers usually occurs in board meetings. Most legal systems require sufficient notice to be given to all directors of these meetings, and that a quorum must be present before any business may be conducted. Usually, a meeting which is held without notice having been given is still valid if all of the directors attend, but it has been held that a failure to give notice may negate resolutions passed at a meeting, because the persuasive oratory of a minority of directors might have persuaded the majority to change their minds and vote otherwise.[40]

text: In most common law countries, the powers of the board are vested in the board as a whole, and not in the individual directors.[41] However, in instances an individual director may still bind the company by his acts by virtue of his ostensible authority (see also: the rule in Turquand's Case).

text: Duties[edit]

text: Because directors exercise control and management over the organization, but organizations are (in theory) run for the benefit of the shareholders, the law imposes strict duties on directors in relation to the exercise of their duties. The duties imposed on directors are fiduciary duties, similar to those that the law imposes on those in similar positions of trust: agents and trustees.

text: The duties apply to each director separately, while the powers apply to the board jointly. Also, the duties are owed to the company itself, and not to any other entity.[42] This does not mean that directors can never stand in a fiduciary relationship to the individual shareholders; they may well have such a duty in certain circumstances.[43]

text: "Proper purpose"[edit]

text: Directors must exercise their powers for a proper purpose. While in many instances an improper purpose is readily evident, such as a director looking to feather his or her own nest or divert an investment opportunity to a relative, such breaches usually involve a breach of the director's duty to act in good faith. Greater difficulties arise where the director, while acting in good faith, is serving a purpose that is not regarded by the law as proper.

text: The seminal authority in relation to what amounts to a proper purpose is the Supreme Court decision in Eclairs Group Ltd v JKX Oil & Gas plc [2015] UKSC 71 (2 December 2015). The case concerned the powers of directors under the articles of association of the company to disenfranchise voting rights attached to shares for failure to properly comply with notice served on the shareholders. Prior to that case the leading authority was Howard Smith Ltd v Ampol Ltd [1974] AC 821. The case concerned the power of the directors to issue new shares.[44] It was alleged that the directors had issued a large number of new shares purely to deprive a particular shareholder of his voting majority. An argument that the power to issue shares could only be properly exercised to raise new capital was rejected as too narrow, and it was held that it would be a proper exercise of the director's powers to issue shares to a larger company to ensure the financial stability of the company, or as part of an agreement to exploit mineral rights owned by the company.[45] If so, the mere fact that an incidental result (even if it was a desired consequence) was that a shareholder lost his majority, or a takeover bid was defeated, this would not itself make the share issue improper. But if the sole purpose was to destroy a voting majority, or block a takeover bid, that would be an improper purpose.

text: Not all jurisdictions recognised the "proper purpose" duty as separate from the "good faith" duty however.[e]

text: "Unfettered discretion"[edit]

text: Directors cannot, without the consent of the company, fetter their discretion in relation to the exercise of their powers, and cannot bind themselves to vote in a particular way at future board meetings.[f] This is so even if there is no improper motive or purpose, and no personal advantage to the director.

text: This does not mean, however, that the board cannot agree to the company entering into a contract which binds the company to a certain course, even if certain actions in that course will require further board approval. The company remains bound, but the directors retain the discretion to vote against taking the future actions (although that may involve a breach by the company of the contract that the board previously approved).

text: "Conflict of duty and interest"[edit]

text: As fiduciaries, the directors may not put themselves in a position where their interests and duties conflict with the duties that they owe to the company. The law takes the view that good faith must not only be done, but must be manifestly seen to be done, and zealously patrols the conduct of directors in this regard; and will not allow directors to escape liability by asserting that his decision was in fact well founded. Traditionally, the law has divided conflicts of duty and interest into three sub-categories.

text: Transactions with the company[edit]

text: By definition, where a director enters into a transaction with a company, there is a conflict between the director's interest (to do well for himself out of the transaction) and his duty to the company (to ensure that the company gets as much as it can out of the transaction). This rule is so strictly enforced that, even where the conflict of interest or conflict of duty is purely hypothetical, the directors can be forced to disgorge all personal gains arising from it. In Aberdeen Ry v Blaikie (1854) 1 Macq HL 461 Lord Cranworth stated in his judgment that:

text: However, in many jurisdictions the members of the company are permitted to ratify transactions which would otherwise fall foul of this principle. It is also largely accepted in most jurisdictions that this principle can be overridden in the company's constitution.

text: In many countries, there is also a statutory duty to declare interests in relation to any transactions, and the director can be fined for failing to make disclosure.[g]

text: Use of corporate property, opportunity, or information[edit]

text: Directors must not, without the informed consent of the company, use for their own profit the company's assets, opportunities, or information. This prohibition is much less flexible than the prohibition against the transactions with the company, and attempts to circumvent it using provisions in the articles have met with limited success.

text: In Regal (Hastings) Ltd v Gulliver [1942] All ER 378 the House of Lords, in upholding what was regarded as a wholly unmeritorious claim by the shareholders,[h] held that:

text: And accordingly, the directors were required to disgorge the profits that they made, and the shareholders received their windfall.

text: The decision has been followed in several subsequent cases,[46] and is now regarded as settled law.

text: Competing with the company[edit]

text: Directors cannot compete directly with the company without a conflict of interest arising. Similarly, they should not act as directors of competing companies, as their duties to each company would then conflict with each other.

text: Common law duties of care and skill[edit]

text: Traditionally, the level of care and skill which has to be demonstrated by a director has been framed largely with reference to the non-executive director. In Re City Equitable Fire Insurance Co [1925] Ch 407, it was expressed in purely subjective terms, where the court held that:

text: However, this decision was based firmly in the older notions (see above) that prevailed at the time as to the mode of corporate decision making, and effective control residing in the shareholders; if they elected and put up with an incompetent decision maker, they should not have recourse to complain.

text: However, a more modern approach has since developed, and in Dorchester Finance Co Ltd v Stebbing [1989] BCLC 498 the court held that the rule in Equitable Fire related only to skill, and not to diligence. With respect to diligence, what was required was:

text: This was a dual subjective and objective test, and one deliberately pitched at a higher level.

text: More recently, it has been suggested that both the tests of skill and diligence should be assessed objectively and subjectively; in the United Kingdom, the statutory provisions relating to directors' duties in the new Companies Act 2006 have been codified on this basis.[47]

text: Remedies for breach of duty[edit]

text: In most jurisdictions, the law provides for a variety of remedies in the event of a breach by the directors of their duties:

text:
injunction or declaration
damages or compensation
restoration of the company's property
rescission of the relevant contract
account of profits
summary dismissal

tag: ol

text: Current trends[edit]

text: Historically, directors' duties have been owed almost exclusively to the company and its members, and the board was expected to exercise its powers for the financial benefit of the company. However, more recently there have been attempts to "soften" the position, and provide for more scope for directors to act as good corporate citizens. For example, in the United Kingdom, the Companies Act 2006 requires directors of companies "to promote the success of the company for the benefit of its members as a whole" and sets out the following six factors regarding a director's duty to promote success:

text:
the likely consequences of any decision in the long term
the interests of the company's employees
the need to foster the company's business relationships with suppliers, customers and others
the impact of the company's operations on the community and the environment
the desirability of the company maintaining a reputation for high standards of business conduct, and
the need to act fairly as between members of a company

text: This represents a considerable departure from the traditional notion that directors' duties are owed only to the company. Previously in the United Kingdom, under the Companies Act 1985, protections for non-member stakeholders were considerably more limited (see for example, s.309 which permitted directors to take into account the interests of employees but which could only be enforced by the shareholders and not by the employees themselves). The changes have therefore been the subject of some criticism.[48]

text: United States[edit]

text: Sarbanes–Oxley Act[edit]

text: The Sarbanes–Oxley Act of 2002 has introduced new standards of accountability on boards of U.S. companies or companies listed on U.S. stock exchanges. Under the Act, directors risk large fines and prison sentences in the case of accounting crimes. Internal control is now the direct responsibility of directors. The vast majority of companies covered by the Act have hired internal auditors to ensure that the company adheres to required standards of internal control. The internal auditors are required by law to report directly to an audit board, consisting of directors more than half of whom are outside directors, one of whom is a "financial expert."

text: The law requires companies listed on the major stock exchanges (NYSE, NASDAQ) to have a majority of independent directors—directors who are not otherwise employed by the firm or in a business relationship with it.

text: Size[edit]

text: According to the Corporate Library's study, the average size of publicly traded company's board is 9.2 members, and most boards range from 3 to 31 members. According to Investopedia, some analysts think the ideal size is seven.[49] State law may specify a minimum number of directors, maximum number of directors, and qualifications for directors (e.g. whether board members must be individuals or may be business entities).[50][51]

text: Committees[edit]

text: While a board may have several committees, two—the compensation committee and audit committee—are critical and must be made up of at least three independent directors and no inside directors. Other common committees in boards are nominating and governance.[49][52]

text: Compensation[edit]

text: Directors of Fortune 500 companies received median pay of $234,000 in 2011. Directorship is a part-time job. A recent National Association of Corporate Directors study found directors averaging just 4.3 hours a week on board work.[53] Surveys indicate that about 20% of nonprofit foundations pay their board members,[54] and 2% of American nonprofit organizations do.[55][56] 80% of nonprofit organizations require board members to personally contribute to the organization,[57] as BoardSource recommends.[58] This percentage has increased in recent years.[59][60][61]

text: Criticism[edit]

text: According to John Gillespie, a former investment banker and co-author of a book critical of boards,[62] "Far too much of their time has been for check-the-box and cover-your-behind activities rather than real monitoring of executives and providing strategic advice on behalf of shareholders".[53] At the same time, scholars have found that individual directors have a large effect on major corporate initiatives such as mergers and acquisitions[63] and cross-border investments.[64]

text: The issue of gender representation on corporate boards of directors has been the subject of much criticism in recent years. Governments and corporations have responded with measures such as legislation mandating gender quotas and comply or explain systems to address the disproportionality of gender representation on corporate boards.[65] A study of the French corporate elite has found that certain social classes are also disproportionately represented on boards, with those from the upper and, especially, upper-middle classes tending to dominate.[66]


document_title: Panama Canal

question_text: who was president when the panama canal was built

question_tokens: who was president when the panama canal was built

root

text: Panama Canal

text: History[edit]

text: Early proposals in Panama[edit]

text: The earliest mention of a canal across the Isthmus of Panama dates back to 1534, when Charles V, Holy Roman Emperor and King of Spain, ordered a survey for a route through the Americas that would ease the voyage for ships traveling between Spain and Peru. Such a route would have given the Spanish a military advantage over the Portuguese.[4]

tag: p

text: In 1668 the English physician and philosopher Sir Thomas Browne speculated in his encyclopaedic endeavour Pseudodoxia Epidemica - some Isthmus have been eat through by the Sea, and others cut by the spade: And if policy would permit, that of Panama in America were most worthy the attempt: it being but few miles over, and would open a shorter cut unto the East Indies and China.[5]

text: In 1788, Thomas Jefferson suggested that the Spanish should create it since it would be a less treacherous route than going around the southern tip of South America, which tropical ocean currents would naturally widen thereafter.[6] During an expedition from 1788 to 1793, Alessandro Malaspina outlined plans for its construction.[7]

text: Given the strategic location of Panama and the potential offered by its narrow isthmus separating two great oceans, other trade links in the area were attempted over the years. The ill-fated Darien scheme was launched by the Kingdom of Scotland in 1698 to set up an overland trade route. Generally inhospitable conditions thwarted the effort and it was abandoned in April 1700.[8]

text: The late 18th and early 19th centuries saw a number of canals built. The success of the Erie Canal in the United States and the collapse of the Spanish Empire in Latin America led to a surge of American interest in building an interoceanic canal. Beginning in 1826, US officials began negotiations with Gran Colombia (present-day Colombia, Venezuela, Ecuador and Panama), hoping to gain a concession for the building of a canal. Jealous of their newly obtained independence and fearing that they would be dominated by an American presence, the president Simon Bolivar and new granadans officials declined American offers. The new nation was politically unstable, and Panama rebelled several times during the 19th century.

text: Another effort was made in 1843. According to the New York Daily Tribune, August 24, 1843, a contract was entered into by Barings of London and the Republic of New Granada for the construction of a canal across the Isthmus of Darien (Isthmus of Panama). They referred to it as the Atlantic and Pacific Canal and it was a wholly British endeavor. It was expected to be completed in five years, but the plan was never carried out. At nearly the same time, other ideas were floated, including a canal (and/or a railroad) across Mexico's Isthmus of Tehuantepec. Nothing came of that plan either.[9]

text: In 1846 the Mallarino–Bidlack Treaty, negotiated between the U.S. and New Granada, granted the United States transit rights and the right to intervene militarily in the isthmus. In 1849, the discovery of gold in California created great interest in a crossing between the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans. The Panama Railway was built by the United States to cross the isthmus and opened in 1855. This overland link became a vital piece of western hemisphere infrastructure, greatly facilitating trade and largely determining the later canal route.

text: An all-water route between the oceans was still seen as the ideal solution, and in 1855 William Kennish, a Manx-born engineer working for the United States government, surveyed the isthmus and issued a report on a route for a proposed Panama Canal.[10] His report was published as a book entitled The Practicability and Importance of a Ship Canal to Connect the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans.[11]

text: In 1877 Armand Reclus, an officer with the French Navy, and Lucien Napoléon Bonaparte Wyse, both engineers, surveyed the route and published a French proposal for a canal.[12] French success in building the Suez Canal, while a lengthy project, encouraged planning for one to cross the isthmus.[13]

text: French construction attempts, 1881–1894[edit]

text: The first attempt to construct a canal through what was then Colombia's province of Panama began on January 1, 1881. The project was inspired by the diplomat Ferdinand de Lesseps, who was able to raise considerable finance in France as a result of the huge profits generated by his successful construction of the Suez Canal.[14] Although the Panama Canal would eventually have to be only 40% as long as the Suez Canal, the former would prove to be far more of an engineering challenge, due to the tropical rain forests, the climate, the need for canal locks, and the lack of any ancient route to follow.

text: De Lesseps wanted a sea-level canal as at Suez but only visited the site a few times, during the dry season which lasts only four months of the year.[15] His men were totally unprepared for the rainy season, during which the Chagres River, where the canal started, became a raging torrent, rising up to 10 meters (35 feet). The dense jungle was alive with venomous snakes, insects and spiders, but the worst aspect was the yellow fever and malaria (and other tropical diseases) which killed thousands of workers: by 1884 the death rate was over 200 per month.[16] Public health measures were ineffective because the role of the mosquito as a disease vector was then unknown. Conditions were downplayed in France to avoid recruitment problems,[17] but the high mortality rate made it difficult to maintain an experienced workforce.

text: Workers had to continually widen the main cut through the mountain at Culebra and reduce the angles of the slopes to minimize landslides into the canal.[18] Steam shovels were used in the construction of the canal, and they were purchased from Bay City Industrial Works, a business owned by William L. Clements in Bay City, Michigan.[19] Other mechanical and electrical equipment was limited in its capabilities, and steel equipment rusted rapidly in the climate.[20]

text: In France, de Lesseps kept the investment and supply of workers flowing long after it was obvious that the targets were not being met, but eventually the money ran out. The French effort went bankrupt in 1889 after reportedly spending US$287,000,000 and losing an estimated 22,000 lives to disease and accidents, wiping out the savings of 800,000 investors.[17][21] Work was suspended on May 15, and in the ensuing scandal, known as the Panama affair, various of those deemed responsible were prosecuted, including Gustave Eiffel.[22] De Lesseps and his son Charles were found guilty of misappropriation of funds and sentenced to five years' imprisonment, though this was later overturned, and the father, at 88, was never imprisoned.[17]

text: In 1894, a second French company, the Compagnie Nouvelle du Canal de Panama, was created to take over the project. A minimal workforce of a few thousand people was employed primarily to comply with the terms of the Colombian Panama Canal concession, to run the Panama Railroad, and to maintain the existing excavation and equipment in salable condition. The company sought a buyer for these assets, with an asking price of US$109,000,000. In the meantime they continued with enough activity to maintain their franchise. Phillipe Bunau-Varilla, the French manager of the New Panama Canal Company, eventually managed to persuade de Lesseps that a lock-and-lake canal was more realistic than a sea-level canal.[23]

text: United States acquisition[edit]

text: At this time, the President and the Senate of the United States were interested in establishing a canal across the isthmus, with some favoring a canal across Nicaragua and others advocating the purchase of the French interests in Panama. Bunau-Varilla, who was seeking American involvement, asked for $100 million, but accepted $40 million in the face of the Nicaraguan option. In June 1902, the U.S. Senate voted in favor of pursuing the Panamanian option, provided the necessary rights could be obtained, in the Spooner Act.[24]

text: On January 22, 1903, the Hay–Herrán Treaty was signed by United States Secretary of State John M. Hay and Colombian Chargé Dr. Tomás Herrán. For $10 million and an annual payment it would have granted the United States a renewable lease in perpetuity from Colombia on the land proposed for the canal.[25] The treaty was ratified by the U.S. Senate on March 14, 1903, but the Senate of Colombia did not ratify it. Bunau-Varilla told President Theodore Roosevelt and Hay of a possible revolt by Panamanian rebels who aimed to separate from Colombia, and hoped that the United States would support the rebels with U.S. troops and money. Roosevelt changed tactics, based in part on the Mallarino–Bidlack Treaty of 1846, and actively supported the separation of Panama from Colombia and, shortly after recognizing Panama, signed a treaty with the new Panamanian government under similar terms to the Hay–Herrán Treaty.[26]

text: On November 2, 1903, U.S. warships blocked sea lanes for possible Colombian troop movements en route to put down the rebellion. Panama declared independence on November 3, 1903. The United States quickly recognized the new nation.[27] On November 6, 1903, Philippe Bunau-Varilla, as Panama's ambassador to the United States, signed the Hay–Bunau-Varilla Treaty, granting rights to the United States to build and indefinitely administer the Panama Canal Zone and its defenses. This is sometimes misinterpreted as the "99-year lease" because of misleading wording included in article 22 of the agreement.[28] Almost immediately, the treaty was condemned by many Panamanians as an infringement on their country's new national sovereignty.[29][30] This would later become a contentious diplomatic issue among Colombia, Panama, and the United States.

text: President Roosevelt famously stated that "I took the Isthmus, started the canal and then left Congress not to debate the canal, but to debate me." Several parties in the United States called this an act of war on Colombia: The New York Times called the support given by the United States to Bunau-Varilla an "act of sordid conquest." The New York Evening Post called it a "vulgar and mercenary venture." It is often cited as the classic example of U.S. gunboat diplomacy in Latin America, and the best illustration of what Roosevelt meant by the old African adage, "Speak softly and carry a big stick [and] you will go far." After the revolution in 1903, the Republic of Panama became a U.S. protectorate until 1939.[31]

text: Thus in 1904, the United States purchased the French equipment and excavations, including the Panama Railroad, for US$40 million, of which $30 million related to excavations completed, primarily in the Gaillard Cut (then called the Culebra Cut), valued at about $1.00 per cubic yard.[32] The United States also paid the new country of Panama $10 million and a $250,000 payment each following year.

text: In 1921, Colombia and the United States entered into the Thomson-Urrutia Treaty, in which the United States agreed to pay Colombia $25 million: $5 million upon ratification, and four-$5 million annual payments, and grant Colombia special privileges in the Canal Zone. In return, Colombia recognized Panama as an independent nation.

text: United States construction of the Panama canal, 1904–1914[edit]

text: The U.S. formally took control of the canal property on May 4, 1904, inheriting from the French a depleted workforce and a vast jumble of buildings, infrastructure and equipment, much of it in poor condition. A U.S. government commission, the Isthmian Canal Commission (ICC), was established to oversee construction[33] and was given control of the Panama Canal Zone, over which the United States exercised sovereignty. The commission reported directly to Secretary of War William Howard Taft and was directed to avoid the inefficiency and corruption that had plagued the French 15 years earlier.

text: On May 6, 1904, President Theodore Roosevelt appointed John Findley Wallace, formerly chief engineer and finally general manager of the Illinois Central Railroad, as chief engineer of the Panama Canal Project. Overwhelmed by the disease-plagued country and forced to use often dilapidated French infrastructure and equipment,[34] as well as being frustrated by the overly bureaucratic ICC, Wallace resigned abruptly in June 1905.[35] He was succeeded by John Frank Stevens, a self-educated engineer who had built the Great Northern Railroad.[36] Stevens was not a member of the ICC; he increasingly viewed its bureaucracy as a serious hindrance, bypassing the commission and sending requests and demands directly to the Roosevelt Administration in Washington.

text: One of Stevens' first achievements in Panama was in building and rebuilding the housing, cafeterias, hotels, water systems, repair shops, warehouses, and other infrastructure needed by the thousands of incoming workers. Stevens began the recruitment effort to entice thousands of workers from the United States and other areas to come to the Canal Zone to work, and tried to provide accommodation in which the incoming workers could work and live in reasonable safety and comfort. He also re-established and enlarged the railway that was to prove crucial in transporting millions of tons of soil from the cut through the mountains to the dam across the Chagres River.

text: Colonel William C. Gorgas had been appointed chief sanitation officer of the canal construction project in 1904. Gorgas implemented a range of measures to minimize the spread of deadly diseases, particularly yellow fever and malaria which had recently been shown to be mosquito-borne following the work of Dr. Carlos Finlay and Dr. Walter Reed.[37] There was investment in extensive sanitation projects, including city water systems, fumigation of buildings, spraying of insect-breeding areas with oil and larvicide, installation of mosquito netting and window screens, and elimination of stagnant water. Despite opposition from the Commission (one member said his ideas were barmy), Gorgas persisted and when Stevens arrived, he threw his weight behind the project. After two years of extensive work, the mosquito-spread diseases were nearly eliminated.[38] Nevertheless, even with all this effort, about 5,600 workers died of disease and accidents during the U.S. construction phase of the canal.

text: In 1905, a U.S. engineering panel was commissioned to review the canal design, which still had not been finalized. It recommended to President Roosevelt a sea-level canal, as had been attempted by the French. However, in 1906 Stevens, who had seen the Chagres in full flood, was summoned to Washington and declared a sea-level approach to be "an entirely untenable proposition". He argued in favor of a canal using a lock system to raise and lower ships from a large reservoir 85 ft (26 m) above sea level. This would create both the largest dam (Gatun Dam) and the largest man-made lake (Gatun Lake) in the world at that time. The water to refill the locks would be taken from Gatun Lake by opening and closing enormous gates and valves and letting gravity propel the water from the lake. Gatun Lake would connect to the Pacific through the mountains at the Gaillard (Culebra) Cut. Stevens successfully convinced Roosevelt of the necessity and feasibility of the alternative scheme.[39]

text: The construction of a canal with locks required the excavation of more than 170,000,000 cu yd (130,000,000 m3) of material over and above the 30,000,000 cu yd (23,000,000 m3) excavated by the French. As quickly as possible, the Americans replaced or upgraded the old, unusable French equipment with new construction equipment that was designed for a much larger and faster scale of work. About 102 new large, railroad-mounted steam shovels were purchased from the Marion Power Shovel Company and brought from the United States. These were joined by enormous steam-powered cranes, giant hydraulic rock crushers, cement mixers, dredges, and pneumatic power drills, nearly all of which were manufactured by new, extensive machine-building technology developed and built in the United States. The railroad also had to be comprehensively upgraded with heavy-duty, double-tracked rails over most of the line to accommodate new rolling stock. In many places, the new Gatun Lake flooded over the original rail line, and a new line had to be constructed above Gatun Lake's waterline.

text: West Indian labor migration to Panama (1850–1914)[edit]

text: This section does not cite any sources. Please help improve this section by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (August 2017) (Learn how and when to remove this template message)

tag: table

text: Emancipation in the British West Indies in 1838 freed over one-half million slaves, transforming the islands’ societies and economies. Most freedmen preferred not to do plantation work anymore, and the sugar industries gradually declined. The white colonial elites and mulatto middle classes managed to reconstruct the social hierarchy so that the blacks remained at the bottom. In such a precarious position, black freedmen had to take any jobs that appeared, including those abroad. Thus, began the trans-Caribbean migration phase of the diaspora.

text: The California gold rush of 1849 rekindled interest in a modern transportation route across Central America and spurred larger migrations of these freedmen. Two crossings were developed, Vanderbilt’s steamship and stage line in Nicaragua and the New York-based Panama Railroad. Both enterprises used imported labor, largely Jamaican. Some 5,000 eventually worked on the Panama railroad line. The projects proved that the West Indian blacks resisted tropical diseases better than other workers and they were available in large numbers due to the islands’ depressed economies.

text: Caribbean migration on a large scale would resume again in the 1880s as a result of two developments, the French canal project and the spread of banana cultivation. The French company employed over 50,000 West Indians (again mainly Jamaicans) during its unsuccessful bid to build the canal across the isthmus.

text: Banana cultivation also proved a boon to the region’s economy after the 1880s, expanding commercial agriculture and inducing thousands more to migrate. By the early twentieth century, the United Fruit Company operated a string of banana ports, including Puerto Limon (Costa Rica) and Bocas del Toro (Panama).

text: During the construction of the Panama Canal by the Americans (1904-1914), the West Indian migrations to Panama constituted a demographic tidal wave, the largest yet in Caribbean history. Officially, canal authorities brought over 31,000 West Indian men and a few women. But in fact, contemporaries estimated that between 150,000 and 200,000 men and women must have migrated during the decade 1904-1914. Most did not plan to stay in Panama. Eventually though, tens of thousands remained on the isthmus because the islands offered few opportunities that could compete with the pay and benefits available in Panama. The West Indians settled, married, had children, and became the largest immigrant group in the sparsely populated country. The descendants of these immigrants are known today as Afro-Panamanians.

text: George Washington Goethals replaces John Frank Stevens as chief engineer[edit]

text: In 1907, Stevens resigned as chief engineer.[40] His replacement, appointed by President Theodore Roosevelt, was U.S. Army Major George Washington Goethals of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (soon to be promoted to lieutenant colonel and later to General), a strong, United States Military Academy–trained leader and civil engineer with experience of canals (unlike Stevens). Goethals would direct the work in Panama to a successful conclusion in 1914, two years ahead of the target date of June 10, 1916.[41]

text: Goethals divided the engineering and excavation work into three divisions: Atlantic, Central, and Pacific. The Atlantic Division, under Major William L. Sibert, was responsible for construction of the massive breakwater at the entrance to Limon Bay, the Gatun locks and their 3½ mi (5.6 km) approach channel, and the immense Gatun Dam. The Pacific Division, under Sydney B. Williamson (the only civilian member of this high-level team), was similarly responsible for the Pacific 3 mi (4.8 km) breakwater in Panama Bay, the approach channel to the locks, and the Miraflores and Pedro Miguel locks and their associated dams and reservoirs.[42]

text: The Central Division, under Major David du Bose Gaillard of the United States Army Corps of Engineers, was assigned one of the most difficult parts: excavating the Culebra Cut through the continental divide to connect Gatun Lake to the Pacific Panama Canal locks.[43]

text: On October 10, 1913, President Woodrow Wilson sent a signal from the White House by telegraph which triggered the explosion that destroyed the Gamboa Dike. This flooded the Culebra Cut, thereby joining the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans.[44] Alexandre La Valley (a floating crane built by Lobnitz & Company, and launched in 1887) was the first self-propelled vessel to transit the canal from ocean to ocean. This vessel crossed the canal from the Atlantic in stages during construction, finally reaching the Pacific on January 7, 1914.[45] SS Cristobal (a cargo and passenger ship built by Maryland Steel, and launched in 1902 as SS Tremont) was the first ship to transit the canal from ocean to ocean on August 3, 1914.[46]

text: The construction of the canal was completed in 1914, 401 years after Panama was first crossed by Vasco Núñez de Balboa. The United States spent almost $500,000,000 (roughly equivalent to $9,169,650,000 now[47]) to finish the project. This was by far the largest American engineering project to date. The canal was formally opened on August 15, 1914, with the passage of the cargo ship SS Ancon.[48]

text: The opening of Panama Canal in 1914 caused a severe drop in traffic along Chilean ports due to shifts in the maritime trade routes.[49][50][51]

text:
A Marion steam shovel excavating the Panama Canal in 1908

The Panama Canal locks under construction in 1910

The first ship to transit the canal, the SS Ancon, passes through on 15 August 1914

text: Throughout this time, Ernest "Red" Hallen was hired by the Isthmian Canal Commission to document the progress of the work.

text: Later developments[edit]

text: By the 1930s it was seen that water supply would be an issue for the canal; this prompted the building of the Madden Dam across the Chagres River above Gatun Lake. Completed in 1935, the dam created Madden Lake (later Alajeula Lake) which provides additional water storage for the canal.[52] In 1939, construction began on a further major improvement: a new set of locks for the canal, large enough to carry the larger warships that the United States was building at the time and planned to continue building. The work proceeded for several years, and significant excavation was carried out on the new approach channels, but the project was canceled after World War II.[53][54]

text:
Statement on the Panama Canal Treaty Signing

Jimmy Carter's speech upon signing the Panama Canal treaty, 7 September 1977

Problems playing this file? See media help.

text: After World War II, U.S. control of the canal and the Canal Zone surrounding it became contentious; relations between Panama and the United States became increasingly tense. Many Panamanians felt that the Canal Zone rightfully belonged to Panama; student protests were met by the fencing-in of the zone and an increased military presence there.[55] Demands for the United States to hand over the canal to Panama increased after the Suez Crisis in 1956, when the United States used financial and diplomatic pressure to force France and the UK to abandon their attempt to retake control of the Suez Canal, previously nationalized by the Nasser regime in Egypt. Unrest culminated in riots on Martyr's Day, January 9, 1964, when about 20 Panamanians and 3–5 U.S. soldiers were killed.

text: A decade later, in 1974, negotiations toward a settlement began and resulted in the Torrijos–Carter Treaties. On September 7, 1977, the treaty was signed by President of the United States Jimmy Carter and Omar Torrijos, de facto leader of Panama. This mobilized the process of granting the Panamanians free control of the canal so long as Panama signed a treaty guaranteeing the permanent neutrality of the canal. The treaty led to full Panamanian control effective at noon on December 31, 1999, and the Panama Canal Authority (ACP) assumed command of the waterway. The Panama Canal remains one of the chief revenue sources for Panama.[56][57]

text: Before this handover, the government of Panama held an international bid to negotiate a 25-year contract for operation of the container shipping ports located at the canal's Atlantic and Pacific outlets. The contract was not affiliated with the ACP or Panama Canal operations and was won by the firm Hutchison Whampoa, a Hong Kong–based shipping interest owned by Li Ka-shing.[citation needed]

text: Canal[edit]

text: Layout[edit]

text:
[hide]
[

v
t
e

]
Panama Canal

Legend

km

mi

Atlantic Ocean(Caribbean Sea)

0
Atlantic Entrance,Manzanillo Bay Breakwater entrance

8.7

5.4

[show]Port of Colón (Cristóbal)

Colón, cruise terminal, MIT, Free Trade Zone, airport

Cristóbal harbor,Atlantic passenger station

Third Bridge or Atlantic bridge

1.9

1.2

Gatun Locks3 chambers, +26 m (85 ft)

new Agua Clara Locks(3 chambers; water saving basins)

Gatun Dam,Chagres River hydroelectricity (22.5 MW)[58], spillway

24.2

15.0

Gatun Lake

Gatún River, causeway, Monte Lirio bridge

8.5

5.3

Gamboa

Chagres River,Madden Dam, Alajuela Lake

with hydroelectricity (36 MW)[58]

12.6

7.8

Culebra Cut(Gaillard Cut)

Continental watershed, summit

Centennial Bridge (Pan-American Highway, via Panama City)

1.4

0.9

Pedro Miguel Locks1 chamber, +9.5 m (31 ft)

new Cocoli Locks(3 chambers; water saving basins)

1.7

1.1

Miraflores Lake

1.7

1.1

Miraflores Locks2 chambers, +16.5 m (54 ft); spillway

13.2

8.2

[show]Port of Balboa

Diablo, Corozal passenger station, Airport, Rail terminal

Balboa

total

Bridge of the Americas (Arraiján–Panama City)

77.1

47.9

Pacific Entrance

Pacific Ocean(Gulf of Panama)

 Legend

Navigable canal(maximum draft: 39.5 feet (12.0 m))

Non-navigable water

Dock, industrial or logistical area

Water flow direction

Panama Canal Railway(passenger station, freight station)

City, village or town

text: While globally the Atlantic Ocean is east of the isthmus and the Pacific is west, the general direction of the canal passage from the Atlantic to the Pacific is from northwest to southeast. This is because of a local anomaly in the shape of the isthmus at the point the canal occupies. The Bridge of the Americas (Spanish: Puente de las Américas) at the Pacific side is about a third of a degree east of the Colón end on the Atlantic side.[59] Still, in formal nautical communications, the simplified directions "Southbound" and "Northbound" are used.

text: The canal consists of artificial lakes, several improved and artificial channels, and three sets of locks. An additional artificial lake, Alajuela Lake (known during the American era as Madden Lake), acts as a reservoir for the canal. The layout of the canal as seen by a ship passing from the Atlantic to the Pacific is as follows:[60]

text:
From the formal marking line of the Atlantic Entrance, one enters Limón Bay (Bahía Limón), a large natural harbor. The entrance runs 5½ mi (8.4 km). It provides a deepwater port (Cristóbal), with facilities like multimodal cargo exchange (to and from train) and the Colón Free Trade Zone (a free port).
A 2 mi (3.2 km) channel forms the approach to the locks from the Atlantic side.
The Gatun Locks, a three-stage flight of locks 1¼ mi (1.9 km) long, lifts ships to the Gatun Lake level, some 87 ft (27 m) above sea level.
Gatun Lake, an artificial lake formed by the building of the Gatun Dam, carries vessels 15 mi (24 km) across the isthmus. It is the summit canal stretch, fed by the Gatun River and emptied by basic lock operations.
From the lake, the Chagres River, a natural waterway enhanced by the damming of Gatun Lake, runs about 5¼ mi (8.5 km). Here the upper Chagres River feeds the high level canal stretch.
The Culebra Cut slices 7¾ mi (12.4 km) through the mountain ridge, crosses the continental divide and passes under the Centennial Bridge.
The single-stage Pedro Miguel Lock, which is ⅞ mi (1.4 km) long, is the first part of the descent with a lift of 31 ft (9.4 m).
The artificial Miraflores Lake 1⅛ mi (1.7 km) long, and 54 ft (16 m) above sea level.
The two-stage Miraflores Locks is 1⅛ mi (1.7 km) long, with a total descent of 54 ft (16 m) at mid-tide.
From the Miraflores Locks one reaches Balboa harbor, again with multimodal exchange provision (here the railway meets the shipping route again). Nearby is Panama City.
From this harbor an entrance/exit channel leads to the Pacific Ocean (Gulf of Panama), 8¼ mi (13.2 km) from the Miraflores Locks, passing under the Bridge of the Americas.

tag: ul

text: Thus, the total length of the canal is 50 miles.

text: Navigation[edit]

text:
[show]Map this section's coordinates using OSM
Map this section's coordinates using Google

Export this section's coordinates as KML

Export this section's coordinates as GPX

Map all microformatted coordinates

Place data as RDF

text:
Point
Coordinates
(links to map & photo sources)
Notes

Atlantic Entrance
9°23′15″N 79°55′07″W / 9.38743°N 79.91863°W / 9.38743; -79.91863 (Atlantic Entrance)

Gatún Locks
9°16′20″N 79°55′22″W / 9.27215°N 79.92266°W / 9.27215; -79.92266 (Gatún Locks)

Trinidad Turn
9°12′36″N 79°55′27″W / 9.20996°N 79.92408°W / 9.20996; -79.92408 (Trinidad Turn)
In "The Cut"

Bohío Turn
9°10′42″N 79°52′00″W / 9.17831°N 79.86667°W / 9.17831; -79.86667 (Bohío Turn)
In "The Cut"

Orchid Turn
9°11′03″N 79°50′42″W / 9.18406°N 79.84513°W / 9.18406; -79.84513 (Orchid Turn)
In "The Cut"

Frijoles Turn
9°09′33″N 79°48′49″W / 9.15904°N 79.81362°W / 9.15904; -79.81362 (Frijoles Turn)
In "The Cut"

Barbacoa Turn
9°07′14″N 79°48′14″W / 9.12053°N 79.80395°W / 9.12053; -79.80395 (Barbacoa Turn)
In "The Cut"

Mamei Turn
9°06′42″N 79°46′07″W / 9.11161°N 79.76856°W / 9.11161; -79.76856 (Mamei Turn)
In "The Cut"

Gamboa Reach
9°07′04″N 79°43′21″W / 9.11774°N 79.72257°W / 9.11774; -79.72257 (Gamboa Reach)

Bas Obispo Reach
9°05′46″N 79°41′04″W / 9.09621°N 79.68446°W / 9.09621; -79.68446 (Bas Obispo Reach)

Las Cascadas Reach
9°04′36″N 79°40′30″W / 9.07675°N 79.67492°W / 9.07675; -79.67492 (Las Cascadas Reach)

Empire Reach
9°03′40″N 79°39′47″W / 9.06104°N 79.66309°W / 9.06104; -79.66309 (Empire Reach)

Culebra Reach
9°02′51″N 79°39′01″W / 9.04745°N 79.65017°W / 9.04745; -79.65017 (Culebra Reach)

Cucaracha Reach
9°02′01″N 79°38′14″W / 9.03371°N 79.63736°W / 9.03371; -79.63736 (Cucaracha Reach)

Paraiso Reach
9°01′33″N 79°37′30″W / 9.02573°N 79.62492°W / 9.02573; -79.62492 (Paraiso Reach)

Pedro Miguel Locks
9°01′01″N 79°36′46″W / 9.01698°N 79.61281°W / 9.01698; -79.61281 (Pedro Miguel Locks)

Miraflores Lake
9°00′27″N 79°36′09″W / 9.00741°N 79.60254°W / 9.00741; -79.60254 (Miraflores Lake)

Miraflores Locks
8°59′48″N 79°35′31″W / 8.99679°N 79.59182°W / 8.99679; -79.59182 (Miraflores Locks)

Balboa Reach
8°58′22″N 79°34′40″W / 8.97281°N 79.57771°W / 8.97281; -79.57771 (Balboa Reach)

Pacific Entrance
8°53′18″N 79°31′17″W / 8.88846°N 79.52145°W / 8.88846; -79.52145 (Pacific Entrance)

text: Gatun Lake[edit]

text: Artificially created in 1913 by damming the Chagres River, Gatun Lake is an essential part of the Panama Canal, providing the millions of gallons of water necessary to operate the Panama Canal locks each time a ship passes through. At the time it was formed, Gatun Lake was the largest human-made lake in the world. The impassable rainforest around the lake has been the best defense of the Panama Canal. Today these areas remain practically unscathed by human interference and are one of the few accessible areas where various native Central American animal and plant species can be observed undisturbed in their natural habitat.

text: The largest island on Gatun Lake is Barro Colorado Island. It was established for scientific study when the lake was formed, and is operated by the Smithsonian Institution. Many important scientific and biological discoveries of the tropical animal and plant kingdom originated here. Gatun Lake covers about 470 square kilometres (180 sq mi), a vast tropical ecological zone and part of the Atlantic Forest Corridor. Ecotourism on the lake has become an industry for Panamanians.

text: Gatun Lake also provides drinking water for Panama City and Colón. Fishing is one of the primary recreational pursuits on Gatun Lake. Non-native peacock bass were introduced by accident to Gatun Lake around 1967[61] by a local businessman,[62] and have since flourished to become the dominant angling game fish in Gatun Lake. Locally called Sargento and believed to be the species Cichla pleiozona,[63] these peacock bass originate from the Amazon, Rio Negro, and Orinoco river basins, where they are considered a premier game fish.

text: Lock size[edit]

text: The size of the locks determines the maximum size ship that can pass through. Because of the importance of the canal to international trade, many ships are built to the maximum size allowed. These are known as Panamax vessels. A Panamax cargo ship typically has a deadweight tonnage (DWT) of 65,000–80,000 tonnes, but its actual cargo is restricted to about 52,500 tonnes because of the 12.6 m (41.2 ft) draft restrictions within the canal.[64] The longest ship ever to transit the canal was the San Juan Prospector (now Marcona Prospector), an ore-bulk-oil carrier that is 296.57 m (973 ft) long with a beam of 32.31 m (106 ft).[65]

text: Initially the locks at Gatun were designed to be 28.5 m (94 ft) wide. In 1908, the United States Navy requested that an increased width of at least 36 m (118 ft) to allow the passage of U.S. Naval ships. Eventually a compromise was made and the locks were built 33.53 m (110.0 ft) wide. Each lock is 320 m (1,050 ft) long, with the walls ranging in thickness from 15 m (49 ft) at the base to 3 m (9.8 ft) at the top. The central wall between the parallel locks at Gatun is 18 m (59 ft) thick and over 24 m (79 ft) high. The steel lock gates measure an average of 2 m (6.6 ft) thick, 19.5 m (64 ft) wide, and 20 m (66 ft) high.[66] It is the size of the locks, specifically the Pedro Miguel Locks, along with the height of the Bridge of the Americas at Balboa, that determine the Panamax metric and limit the size of ships that may use the canal.

text: The 2006 third set of locks project has created larger locks, allowing bigger ships to transit through deeper and wider channels. The allowed dimensions of ships using these locks increased by 25% in length, 51% in beam, and 26% in draft, as defined by New Panamax metrics.[67]

text: Tolls[edit]

text: Tolls for the canal are set by the Panama Canal Authority and are based on vessel type, size, and the type of cargo.[68]

text: For container ships, the toll is assessed on the ship's capacity expressed in twenty-foot equivalent units (TEUs), one TEU being the size of a standard intermodal shipping container. Effective April 1, 2016, this toll went from US$74.00 per loaded container to $60.00 per TEU capacity plus $30.00 per loaded container for a potential $90 per TEU when the ship is full. A Panamax container ship may carry up to 4,400 TEU. The toll is calculated differently for passenger ships and for container ships carrying no cargo ("in ballast"). As of April 1, 2016[update], the ballast rate is US$60.00, down from US$65.60 per TEU.

text: Passenger vessels in excess of 30,000 tons (PC/UMS), known popularly as cruise ships, pay a rate based on the number of berths, that is, the number of passengers that can be accommodated in permanent beds. The per-berth charge since April 1, 2016 is $111 for unoccupied berths and $138 for occupied berths in the Panamax locks. Started in 2007, this fee has greatly increased the tolls for such ships.[69] Passenger vessels of less than 30,000 tons or less than 33 tons per passenger are charged according to the same per-ton schedule as are freighters. Almost all major cruise ships have more than 33 tons per passenger; the rule of thumb for cruise line comfort is generally given as a minimum of 40 tons per passenger.

text: Most other types of vessel pay a toll per PC/UMS net ton, in which one "ton" is actually a volume of 100 cubic feet (2.83 m3). (The calculation of tonnage for commercial vessels is quite complex.) As of fiscal year 2016[update], this toll is US$5.25 per ton for the first 10,000 tons, US$5.14 per ton for the next 10,000 tons, and US$5.06 per ton thereafter. As with container ships, reduced tolls are charged for freight ships "in ballast", $4.19, $4.12, $4.05 respectively.

text: On 1 April 2016, a more complicated toll system was introduced, having the neopanamax locks at a higher rate in some cases, natural gas transport as a new separate category and other changes.[70] As of October 1, 2017, there are modified tolls and categories of tolls in effect.[71] Small (less than 125 ft) vessels up to 583 PC/UMS net tons when carrying passengers or cargo, or up to 735 PC/UMS net tons when in ballast, or up to 1,048 fully loaded displacement tons, are assessed minimum tolls based upon their length overall, according to the following table (as of 29 April 2015):

text:
Length of vessel
Toll

Up to 15.240 meters (50 ft)
US$800

More than 15.240 meters (50 ft) up to 24.384 meters (80 ft)
US$1,300

More than 24.384 meters (80 ft) up to 30.480 meters (100 ft)
US$2,000

More than 30.480 meters (100 ft)
US$3,200

INTRA MARITIME CLUSTER - Local Tourism
More than 24.384 meters (80 ft)
US$2,000
plus $72/TEU

text: Morgan Adams of Los Angeles, California, holds the distinction of paying the first toll received by the United States Government for the use of the Panama Canal by a pleasure boat. His boat Lasata passed through the Zone on August 14, 1914. The crossing occurred during a 6,000-mile sea voyage from Jacksonville, Florida, to Los Angeles in 1914.

text: The most expensive regular toll for canal passage to date was charged on April 14, 2010 to the cruise ship Norwegian Pearl, which paid US$375,600.[72][73] The average toll is around US$54,000. The highest fee for priority passage charged through the Transit Slot Auction System was US$220,300, paid on August 24, 2006, by the Panamax tanker Erikoussa,[74] bypassing a 90-ship queue waiting for the end of maintenance work on the Gatun Locks, and thus avoiding a seven-day delay. The normal fee would have been just US$13,430.[75]

text: The lowest toll ever paid was 36 cents (equivalent to $5.13 in 2017), by American Richard Halliburton who swam the Panama Canal in 1928.[76]

text: In the Warner Bros. cartoon, Eight Ball Bunny, Bugs Bunny attempted to bring a penguin "home" to the South Pole. Going through the canal in a handmade canoe, Bugs complained, "Twenty-five cents to go tru DIS ting? Nah, we'll walk foist!"

text: Issues leading to expansion[edit]

text: In the 100+ years since its opening, the canal continues to enjoy great success. Even though world shipping—and the size of ships themselves—has changed markedly since the canal was designed, it continues to be a vital link in world trade, carrying more cargo than ever before, with fewer overhead costs.[citation needed] Nevertheless, the canal faces a number of potential concerns.

text: Efficiency and maintenance[edit]

text: Opponents to the 1977 Torrijos-Carter Treaties feared that efficiency and maintenance would suffer following the U.S. withdrawal from the Panama Canal Zone; however, this has been proven not to be the case. Capitalizing on practices developed during the American administration, canal operations are improving under Panamanian control.[77] Canal Waters Time (CWT), the average time it takes a vessel to navigate the canal, including waiting time, is a key measure of efficiency; according to the ACP, since 2000, it has ranged between 20 and 30 hours. The accident rate has also not changed appreciably in the past decade, varying between 10 and 30 accidents each year from about 14,000 total annual transits.[78][79][80] An official accident is one in which a formal investigation is requested and conducted.

text: Increasing volumes of imports from Asia, which previously landed on U.S. West Coast ports, are now passing through the canal to the American East Coast.[81] The total number of ocean-going transits increased from 11,725 in 2003 to 13,233 in 2007, falling to 12,855 in 2009. (The canal's fiscal year runs from October through September.)[82] This has been coupled with a steady rise in average ship size and in the numbers of Panamax vessels passing through the canal, so that the total tonnage carried rose from 227.9 million PC/UMS tons in fiscal year 1999 to a then record high of 312.9 million tons in 2007, and falling to 299.1 million tons in 2009.[59][82] Tonnage for fiscal 2013, 2014 and 2015 was 320.6, 326.8 and 340.8 million PC/UMS tons carried on 13,660, 13,481 and 13,874 transits respectively.[83] The Panama Canal Authority (ACP) has invested nearly US$1 billion in widening and modernizing the canal, with the aim of increasing capacity by 20%.[84] The ACP cites a number of major improvements, including the widening and straightening of the Gaillard Cut to reduce restrictions on passing vessels, the deepening of the navigational channel in Gatun Lake to reduce draft restrictions and improve water supply, and the deepening of the Atlantic and Pacific entrances to the canal. This is supported by new equipment, such as a new drill barge and suction dredger, and an increase of the tug boat fleet by 20%. In addition, improvements have been made to the canal's operating machinery, including an increased and improved tug locomotive fleet, the replacement of more than 16 km (10 mi) of locomotive track, and new lock machinery controls. Improvements have been made to the traffic management system to allow more efficient control over ships in the canal.[85]

text: In December 2010, record-breaking rains caused a 17-hour closure of the canal; this was the first closure since the United States invasion of Panama in 1989.[86][87] The rains also caused an access road to the Centenario Bridge to collapse.[88][89][90][91]

text: Capacity[edit]

text: The canal is currently handling more vessel traffic than had ever been envisioned by its builders. In 1934 it was estimated that the maximum capacity of the canal would be around 80 million tons per year;[92] as noted above, canal traffic in 2015 reached 340.8 million tons of shipping.

text: To improve capacity, a number of improvements have been made to the current canal system. These improvements aim to maximize the possible use of current locking system:[93]

text:
Implementation of an enhanced locks lighting system;
Construction of two tie-up stations in Gaillard Cut;
Widening Gaillard Cut from 192 to 218 meters (630 to 715 ft);
Improvements to the tugboat fleet;
Implementation of the carousel lockage system in Gatun locks;
Development of an improved vessel scheduling system;
Deepening of Gatun Lake navigational channels from 10.4 to 11.3 meters (34 to 37 ft) PLD;
Modification of all locks structures to allow an additional draft of about 0.30 meters (1 ft);
Deepening of the Pacific and Atlantic entrances;
Construction of a new spillway in Gatun, for flood control.

text: These improvements enlarged the capacity from 300 million PCUMS (2008) to 340 PCUMS (2012). It should be noted that these improvements were started before the new locks project, and are complementary to it.

text: Competition[edit]

text: Despite having enjoyed a privileged position for many years, the canal is increasingly facing competition from other quarters. Because canal tolls have risen as ships have become larger, some critics[94] have suggested that the Suez Canal is now a viable alternative for cargo en route from Asia to the U.S. East Coast.[95] The Panama Canal, however, continues to serve more than 144 of the world's trade routes and the majority of canal traffic comes from the "all-water route" from Asia to the U.S. East and Gulf Coasts.[citation needed]

text: On June 15, 2013, Nicaragua awarded the Hong Kong-based HKND Group a 50-year concession to develop a canal through the country.[96]

text: The increasing rate of melting of ice in the Arctic Ocean has led to speculation that the Northwest Passage or Arctic Bridge may become viable for commercial shipping at some point in the future. This route would save 9,300 km (5,800 mi) on the route from Asia to Europe compared with the Panama Canal, possibly leading to a diversion of some traffic to that route. However, such a route is beset by unresolved territorial issues and would still hold significant problems owing to ice.[97]

text: Water issues[edit]

text: Gatun Lake is filled with rainwater, and the lake accumulates excess water during wet months. The water is lost to the oceans at a rate of 101,000 m3 (26,700,000 US gal; 22,200,000 imp gal) per downward lock cycle. Since a ship will have to go upward to Gatun Lake first and then descend, a single passing will cost double the amount; but the same waterflow cycle can be used for another ship passing in the opposite direction. The ship's submerged volume is not relevant to this amount of water.[98][99] During the dry season, when there is less rainfall, there is also a shortfall of water in Gatun Lake.[citation needed]

text: As a signatory to the United Nations Global Compact and member of the World Business Council for Sustainable Development, the ACP has developed an environmentally and socially sustainable program for expansion, which will protect the aquatic and terrestrial resources of the canal watershed. After completion, expansion will guarantee the availability and quality of water resources by using water-saving basins at each new lock. These water-saving basins will diminish water loss and preserve freshwater resources along the waterway by reusing water from the basins into the locks. Each lock chamber will have three water-saving basins, which will reuse 60% of the water in each transit. There are a total of nine basins for each of the two lock complexes, and a total of 18 basins for the entire project.[citation needed]

text: The mean sea level at the Pacific side is about 20 cm (8 in) higher than that of the Atlantic side due to differences in ocean conditions such as water densities and weather.[100]

text: Third set of locks project (expansion)[edit]

text: As demand is rising for efficient global shipping of goods, the canal is positioned to be a significant feature of world shipping for the foreseeable future. However, changes in shipping patterns —particularly the increasing numbers of larger-than-Panamax ships— necessitated changes to the canal for it to retain a significant market share. In 2006 it was anticipated that by 2011, 37% of the world's container ships would be too large for the present canal, and hence a failure to expand would result in a significant loss of market share. The maximum sustainable capacity of the original canal, given some relatively minor improvement work, was estimated at 340 million PC/UMS tons per year; it was anticipated that this capacity would be reached between 2009 and 2012. Close to 50% of transiting vessels were already using the full width of the locks.[101]

text: An enlargement scheme similar to the 1939 Third Lock Scheme, to allow for a greater number of transits and the ability to handle larger ships, had been under consideration for some time,[102] was approved by the government of Panama,[103][104] The cost was estimated at US$5.25 billion, and the expansion allowed to double the canal's capacity, allowing more traffic and the passage of longer and wider Post-Panamax ships. The proposal to expand the canal was approved in a national referendum by about 80% on October 22, 2006.[105] The canal expansion was built between 2007 and 2016, though completion was originally expected by the end of 2014.[1]

text: The expansion plan had two new flights of locks built parallel to, and operated in addition to, the old locks: one east of the existing Gatun locks, and one southwest of the Miraflores locks, each supported by approach channels. Each flight ascends from sea level directly to the level of Gatun Lake; the existing two-stage ascent at Miraflores and Pedro Miguel locks was not replicated. The new lock chambers feature sliding gates, doubled for safety, and are 427 m (1,400 ft) long, 55 m (180 ft) wide, and 18.3 m (60 ft) deep. This allows the transit of vessels with a beam of up to 49 m (160 ft), an overall length of up to 366 m (1,200 ft) and a draft of up to 15 m (49 ft), equivalent to a container ship carrying around 12,000 containers, each 6.1 m (20 ft) in length (TEU).

text: The new locks are supported by new approach channels, including a 6.2 km (3.9 mi) channel at Miraflores from the locks to the Gaillard Cut, skirting Miraflores Lake. Each of these channels are 218 m (720 ft) wide, which will require post-Panamax vessels to navigate the channels in one direction at a time. The Gaillard Cut and the channel through Gatun Lake were widened to at least 280 m (920 ft) on the straight portions and at least 366 m (1,200 ft) on the bends. The maximum level of Gatun Lake was raised from 26.7 m (88 ft) to 27.1 m (89 ft).

text: Each flight of locks is accompanied by nine water reutilization basins (three per lock chamber), each basin being about 70 m (230 ft) wide, 430 m (1,400 ft) long and 5.50 m (18 ft) deep. These gravity-fed basins allow 60% of the water used in each transit to be reused; the new locks consequently use 7% less water per transit than each of the existing lock lanes. The deepening of Gatun Lake and the raising of its maximum water level also provide capacity for significantly more water storage. These measures are intended to allow the expanded canal to operate without constructing new reservoirs.

text: The estimated cost of the project is US$5.25 billion. The project was designed to allow for an anticipated growth in traffic from 280 million PC/UMS tons in 2005 to nearly 510 million PC/UMS tons in 2025. The expanded canal will have a maximum sustainable capacity of about 600 million PC/UMS tons per year. Tolls will continue to be calculated based on vessel tonnage, and in some cases depend on the locks used.

text: An article in the February 2007 issue of Popular Mechanics magazine described the plans for the canal expansion, focusing on the engineering aspects of the expansion project.[106] There is also a follow-up article in the February 2010 issue of Popular Mechanics.[107]

text: On September 3, 2007, thousands of Panamanians stood across from Paraíso Hill in Panama to witness a huge initial explosion and launch of the Expansion Program. The first phase of the project was the dry excavations of the 218 meters (715 feet) wide trench connecting the Gaillard Cut with the Pacific coast, removing 47 million cubic meters of earth and rock.[108] By June 2012, a 30 m reinforced concrete monolith had been completed, the first of 46 such monoliths which will line the new Pacific-side lock walls.[109] By early July 2012, however, it was announced that the canal expansion project had fallen six months behind schedule, leading expectations for the expansion to open in April 2015 rather than October 2014, as originally planned.[110] By September 2014, the new gates were projected to be open for transit at the "beginning of 2016."[111][112][113][114]

text: It was announced in July 2009 that the Belgian dredging company Jan De Nul, together with a consortium of contractors consisting of the Spanish Sacyr Vallehermoso, the Italian Impregilo, and the Panamanian company Grupo Cusa, had been awarded the contract to build the six new locks for US$3.1 billion, which was one billion less than the next highest competing bid due to having a concrete budget 71% percent smaller than that of the next bidder and allotted roughly 25% less for steel to reinforce that concrete. The contract resulted in $100 million in dredging works over the next few years for the Belgian company and a great deal of work for its construction division. The design of the locks is a carbon copy of the Berendrecht Lock, which is 68 m wide and 500 m long, making it the largest lock in the world. Completed in 1989 by the Port of Antwerp, which De Nul helped build, the company still has engineers and specialists who were part of that project.[115]

text: In January 2014, a contract dispute threatened the progress of the project.[116][117] There was a delay of less than two months however, with work by the consortium members reaching goals by June 2014.[118][119]

text: In June 2015, flooding of the new locks began: first on the Atlantic side, then on the Pacific; by then, the canal's re-inauguration was slated for April 2016.[120][121][122] On March 23, 2016, the expansion inauguration was set for June 26, 2016.[123]

text: The new locks opened for commercial traffic on 26 June 2016, and the first ship to cross the canal using the third set of locks was a modern New Panamax vessel, the Chinese-owned container ship Cosco Shipping Panama.[1] The original locks, now over 100 years old, allow engineers greater access for maintenance, and are projected to continue operating indefinitely.[101]

text: The total cost is unknown since the expansion's contractors are seeking at least an addition US$3.4 billion from the canal authority due to excess expenses.[124]

text: Rival Colombia rail link[edit]

text: China is investigating a proposal to construct a 220 km (137 mi) railway between Colombia's Pacific and Caribbean coasts.[125][126][127][128]

text: Rival Nicaragua canal[edit]

text: On July 7, 2014, Wang Jing, chairman of the HK Nicaragua Canal Development Investment Co. Ltd. (HKND Group) advised that a route for Nicaragua's proposed canal had been approved. The construction work was projected by HKND to begin in 2014 and take 5 years.[129], although there has been little progress whilst a series of environmental impact assessments are being made[130]. The Nicaraguan parliament has approved plans for the 173-mile canal through Nicaragua, and according to the deal, the company will be responsible for operating and maintaining the canal for a 50-year period. The government of Nicaragua hopes this will boost the economy; the opposition is concerned with its environmental impact. According to the independent impact assessment by British firm ERM[130], some 30,000 local residents will be displaced by the canal, although opposition leaders and Amnesty International claim the figure will be in the hundreds of thousands. Supporters and the environmental impact study claim there will be net environmental benefits, but critics argue that nearly a million acres of delicate ecosystems will be destroyed by the time construction is completed.[130][131][132]

text: Other projects[edit]

text: Individuals, companies, and governments have explored the possibility of constructing deep water ports and rail links connecting coasts as a "dry canal" in Guatemala, Costa Rica, and El Salvador/Honduras. However, plans to construct these sea-rail-sea links have yet to materialize.[133]

text: Panama Canal Honorary Pilots[edit]

text: During the last one hundred years, the Panama Canal Authority has appointed a few "Panama Canal Honorary Pilots". The most recent of these were Commodore Ronald Warwick,[134] a former Master of the Cunard Liners SS Queen Elizabeth 2 and RMS Queen Mary 2, who has traversed the Canal more than 50 times, and Captain Raffaele Minotauro, an Unlimited Master Senior Grade, of the former Italian governmental navigation company known as the "Italian Line".