|
 You must be a registered userto receive our newsletter Register Now! |
|
|
|
|
 |
Bay Channel Deepening Gets a Green Light |
 |
|
The CEO of the Port of Melbourne Corporation (POM) was interviewed on ABC 774 this morning and from my point of view I was stunned at the fact that POM admits to "minimal damage" to fish stocks, sea grass and rock fall! It is unlikely that the 5% of seagrass in the bay damaged would recover. POM admits "fish stocks would suffer".
The lsit of environmental impact admissions made by the POM is very concerning!
Each person who has any interest in Port Phillip Bay will now have decide what their personal position is in this vexing regard as no doubt we may have to voice our protest once the 6,000 page "Suplementary Enviorenment Effects Staement" is reviewed and the panel hearings are closed. This will take about 6 weeks.
POM has all the right answers from their point of view and they have a lot of support from State and Ferderal Governments, and naturally (most sides) big business.
Once the bay is altered in the way this major is planned to do... there is no turning back... done is done!
For a good overview on the initial one sided story look into the Age front page today, or read it online.
Posted by BUBBLEDIVER on Wed, 21 Mar 2007 11:13 PM (559 reads)
|
|
|
| "Bay Channel Deepening Gets a Green Light" | Login/Create an Account | 1 comment |
|
| The comments are owned by the poster. We aren't responsible for their content. |
|
Re: Bay Channel Deepening Gets a Green Light
(Score: 1 )
by lloyd_borrett on Wed, 21 Mar 2007 07:34 PM
The "supplementary environmental effects statement" released by the POM cost about $100 million, including $32 million worth of trial dredging in mid-2005. Seems like this project has "cost blowout" written all over it.
The project is supported by an economic study released the Bracks Government suggesting the $763 million project would be worth up to $2.2 billion over 30 years. Victorian taxpayers will be asked to fund up to $300 million by industry if the project is approved. Based on these figures Treasurer John Brumby claims the project would have a cost-benefit ratio of three to one.
Yet most independent experts have stated they believe the project will cost at least $1.2 billion, probably more, which would reduce the cost-benefit ratio down to two to one.
It is reported that, "The Port of Melbourne would not offer compensation to tourist boat companies, diving companies or other affected business operators, but would work to minimise problems."
So there is a potentially significant project cost being ignored. However, if the economic study is accurate, this figure must be in that report somewhere as a part of the economic cost, so as to be factored in to derive the economic cost-benefit figures. Or might this be yet another indicator that the methodology used is somewhat biased towards the project.
Best Regards, Lloyd Borrett.
|
|
|
Average Score: 0
Votes: 0
|
|
|
|
|
Welcome Anonymous
|
|
|
|
|
News
Community
VSAG
Registrant options
Search
Other Services
