Recent Earthquake Raises Concerns on Canal Istanbul Project

In the midst of all the political turmoil and a recent earthquake in Istanbul, the majorly opposed Canal Istanbul Project restarted construction. The government hopes to continue without a great public backlash, but the opposition party leader, Ekrem Imamoğlu, has exclaimed from jail, “They take advantage of my absence to betray Istanbul.”

The Turkish government proposes Canal Istanbul as a major infrastructure project to establish an artificial shipping canal that will connect the Black Sea with the Sea of Marmara. The planned dimensions of the canal include a 45-kilometer (28-mile) length and a depth reaching 25 meters, while the width spans between 400 and 1,000 meters. The proposed canal aims to serve as a substitute for the Bosphorus because the strait handles about 40,000 cargo ships per year, which Türkiye is restricted from taking control of. The Bosphorus remains subject to the Montreux Convention of 1936, which restricts Turkish control of the canal. But as the famous geologist Celal Sengor explains, no earthquake risk analysis has been conducted for any of the transition structures that are foreseen in the EIA Report. The EIA report only includes schematic images of the conceptual designs of these structures. The recent earthquake of magnitude 6.2 on April 23rd raised concerns about the project. Sengor continued, “There are no tangible solution suggestions in the EIA Report regarding how these foundations will be built and no realistic estimates regarding how much they will cost.” Accordingly, the construction cost of the Canal Istanbul project, whose construction period is calculated as 5 years, is expected to be 15 billion dollars (570 billion lira).

He continued by saying that all of the transition structures, especially the transition bridges, are very ambitious, gigantic engineering structures in terms of earthquake behavior. The foundations of seven of the towers, except for one of the long-span bridges, reaching up to 220 meters, will be built in the alluvial soils in the channel section that is stated above to be liquefied. Sengor had previously said in a program he attended, "Canal Istanbul is in an 8.0 magnitude destructiveness zone. If a tsunami hits the canal, it will be destroyed. If the concrete of the canal breaks, seawater will mix with the groundwater, and there will be a disaster. Canal Istanbul should definitely not be allowed."

The political opportunism accusations have intensified because the beginning of the project coincided with the recent imprisonment of Imamoglu. Through a statement he published while in prison, Imamoglu contended that his absence allowed them to capitalize on his lack of presence. His statements find agreement with numerous residents of the city who believe their concerns go unheard, emphasizing the lack of public supervision around this project. Imamoglu had previously taken steps to withdraw the Istanbul Metropolitan Municipality from joint protocols concerning the project. He described Canal Istanbul as “a betrayal to the city,” citing its potential to disrupt water resources, increase urban sprawl, and enrich pro-government construction firms at the expense of ordinary citizens. Many observers now fear that with Imamoglu behind bars, the government will expedite the project while public resistance is in disarray and protests have been limited since his arrest.

When he served as prime minister in 2011, Recep Tayyip Erdogan first presented Canal Istanbul to the public as a "crazy project." The government continues to push forward with the project while scientists, urban planners, and environmentalists, along with most of the population, strongly oppose it. As a well-respected figure, Sengor repeatedly criticizes the government for its poor performance around geological studies, but this doesn’t seem to have as major of an influence as expected. He has shown deep concerns about the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) report of the canal since it lacks proper engineering assessments. He emphasized that earthquake risk analysis has never been performed on any of the bridge structures. “The report includes nothing except hypothetical images. No realistic construction plans. No detailed cost assessments.” The canal contains seven giant bridges as one of its most notable design elements, and each tower attains heights reaching 220 meters. Sengor mentions that the foundations for these structures will need to be placed in alluvial soils that show liquefaction tendencies during earthquakes across the southern third of the canal site. Seismic activity poses a danger of sudden complete destruction to all structures.

The environmentalists are also warning about the impending dangers. The project presents a permanent threat to the vulnerable ecosystem of Istanbul. Contamination affecting a large area may arise when the existing freshwater reservoirs mix with saltwater from the Black Sea and Sea of Marmara due to possible concrete lining breakages. All across this area, wetlands and forests, together with farmlands, face the threat of permanent destruction. During his televised appearance, Sengor stated clearly that a tsunami striking the canal would result in its complete destruction. The contamination will happen when broken concrete allows seawater to mix with groundwater, depicting a disastrous scene and validating the argument to block its construction.

Despite such warnings, the Turkish Minister of Transport and Infrastructure, Abdulkadir Uraloğlu, has insisted that all necessary precautions have been taken. Officials claim that modern engineering techniques will ensure the canal’s safety and resilience. However, these assurances have done little to stop public skepticism—particularly in the wake of Istanbul’s recent earthquake, which served as a stark reminder of the city’s vulnerability. The project’s estimated cost of $15 billion (approximately 570 billion Turkish lira) has also come under scrutiny, especially as Türkiye currently grapples with inflation, a weakened currency, and growing socioeconomic inequality. Critics argue that the funds would be better spent improving earthquake resilience in urban housing and infrastructure, especially in lower-income districts, where building safety is often lacking.