Jump to content

Sandspit marina debate continues


shorebreeze

Recommended Posts

The entertainment value of this thread is no longer adequate to justify its continued existence. The only person enjoying it seems to be shorebreeze and after that last post I suspect he has access to exotic recreational pharmaceuticals denied the rest of us.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Banaari, I love your sense of humour as you allowed me to revisit some excellent Wednesday night entertainment. Here’s a real laugh from a marina newsletter writer. As I said before, what was that guy on? Below is my exotic recreational pharmaceutical denied to the rest of you unless you have been following this thread with attention and understanding of the issues and what is at stake for what was a yachties heaven-SYC. The marina people wrote the quote below, not me.

“Marina update - 27 April 2012 “

"......these newsletters are the foaming bow wave in front of an oil tanker. You are all penguins. When the bow wave first reaches you the water moves and the foam on top makes you realise that something is going happening and you get a “heads up”, but it is not until the steel bow of the tanker arrives that you have a clear idea of the issues. In this case the bow of the tanker can be the judges ruling, a letter on letterhead from the society or the appearance of a prospectus! The message is, we will do our best but don’t believe everything you read!!!"

Interestingly one who puts his name to the newsletters is a frequent visitor to a French speaking island. When I was in New Caledonia, a penguin in French meant an idiot. Who is he calling a penguin? The potential investors? And he said it, I didn't...."don't believe all that you read"

Link to post
Share on other sites

Come on Guys, your still reading it!! No-one is forcing you.

I may block this thread once construction starts, and we can see for a fact where the dredging materials actually go...

Given that the resource consent did not include dumping permission as I understand it, I do find it interesting that no-one has a definitive statement about where it will actually go. It will not fit within the current consent out back of barrier...

Time will tell.

Link to post
Share on other sites

And if for some reason it does go all pear shaped , what liabilities are carried by the berth buyers and SYC? It seems to me this project carries bigger numbers than the average kiwi YC normally deals with, would a breakdown destroy the YC? What do I mean? A club with say 400 members may have an annual budget in the hundreds of thousands, building a marina that doesn't work could leave a liability in the millions.

Link to post
Share on other sites

First a disclaimer - I know nothing about this and also have no position on the marina.

 

That report Terry, seems to be using a PVC tube stuck in the mud/sand. I really cannot see how this would give an accurate silting rate for an area once excavated? Surely that would change the hydrodynamics of the area, and therefore effect the silt rates. Better or worse I can't say....

 

It just seems way to basic to rely on to me....

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have no idea IT. He is a scientist with a very considerable marine background. He is greenie - but all who are green are not necessarily evil.

 

I just thought I'd throw it in the mix. I'd like to see this thread get to record size! :twisted: :twisted:

Link to post
Share on other sites

You are spot on Island Time - I've been watching this for some time and not wanting to say anything at the risk of attracting, how do you say, imbalanced responses...

 

The PVC pipes in the mud have a very long depth to width ratio, they are a pipe! The marina will be a basin with a very shallow depth to width. The basin is likely to acheive laminar flow throughout the cross section of area. The PVC pipes cannot acheive any flow across the area, due to the very narrow width in relation to depth.

 

Anyone with even a basic (read high school physics) understanding of hydraulics would know this "experiment" is complete bollocks and only focused on producing mud (excuse the pun) to through at the proponents of the marina. Even the articles author's comments about how the crabs must be throughing the mud out of the traps, showing the author is entirely blind to this actually happening naturally.

 

Most water networks have a design specificaiton that you cannot have a dead end of greater than about five pipe diameters (i.e. tee peices or fire hydrants, or up to clsoed line valves). This causes significant sedimentation and dramatically impacts water quality. These PVC pipes are significantly deeper than a few pipe diameters.

 

The whole thing is bollocks - the dissapointing thing for me is that I just wasted 3 minutes of my life thinking about it :evil:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Fish, it's only 3 minutes. Don't beat yourself up too much.

 

On the plus side, your post came up with some great names for yachts:

 

Spot On

Watching This

Long Depth

Laminar (or Laminar Flow)

Dead End

Experiment

Five Pipe

Bollocks

Thinking About It

Sedimentation

Mud out of Traps

Traps

Proponents

Cross Section

Hydrant

Wasted

 

And that's just a few of them................... :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes Terry, but he is a marine biologist, not an engineer with the appropriate specialization. That's the problem - "experts" can be used on both sides to bamboozle the general public!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Since Dr Grace is a scientist of considerable excellent reputation in scientific circles would it not be just possible that he consulted sedimentation experts to design his sediment measuring method before spending so much voluntary time and energy to see what sediment is doing in the Sandspit and Whangateau harbours?

Isn’t it interesting that SYCMS did no sediment testing of any type? It relied on theoretical estimates only. Not exactly very scientific or thorough of them was it? Especially if one is dealing with a $20 million + project? Dr Grace’s measurements in the 2 different harbours are possibly the only data ever recorded there. If I were thinking of investing up to $240,000 in a berth licence plus committing myself to all the ongoing costs for 35 years, I just might be thinking very seriously as to whether I’d go for the theoretical estimate or the measurements of a reputable scientist before deciding to lay my money on the table.

I’m starting to think that Dr Grace has been doing the work that SYCMS should have done before they ever applied for a resource consent.

And if he is right about the sediment measurements showing 10x the rate of sedimentation in comparison with SYCMS’s theoretical estimate and the marina is built…what comebacks would the investors have on the SYCMS businessmen who are possibly convinced that Dr Grace’s method is a load of old bollocks as one poster in such a poetic fashion, defined his work? After all someone would have to pay for all that sediment removal wouldn’t they? Would that fall on the SYC members, the marina berth licence holders or you and me, the ratepayers?

Buyer beware is fine…but ratepayer beware also!

Link to post
Share on other sites

If the experimental data is 10x out of kilter with the theoretical prediction I'd be taking a VERY hard look at the design of the experiment. And intuitively, a broad shallow depression (the dredged marina basin) will be "swept" whereas a pipe in the mud will not.

Link to post
Share on other sites

What would the marina basin be 'swept' by Banaari?

It's a big bathtub waiting to fill with whatever comes down the Glen Eden river channel. Watch that river after heavy rain and its a strong yellow colour. Currently it may well 'sweep' by, but dig a hole and with the quiet waters there, wouldn't it just settle out nicely?

But hey, why doesn't someone just simply ask Dr Grace to get his work peer reviewed and then publish the results?

 

And thank you Terry B. I had a look at the link you posted and noticed something else really interesting re the proposed marina dredging. An article titled “Risk of spreading marine pests from Sandspit by dredge spoil dumping at sea.” Now THAT made an interesting read.

Link to post
Share on other sites

SB, I agree with Banaari. The pipe inserted into the mud is essentially a sediment trap. An excavated area of essentially a flat (ish) surface will to a larger extent be "swept" by any water movement.

An external independent specialist engineer is really what is required. Frankly I'm surprised it seems this has not been done?

With my basic level understanding of the engineering, I would have thought that the only way to approach it would have been to measure the sediment content of the water over a period, and then computer model the changes in bottom shape required to see what sediment is likely to fall from suspension. But hey what do I know!!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Island time I couldn't agree with you more re;

"Frankly I'm surprised it seems this has not been done?"

 

:clap:

If the marina society had done due diligence on this matter at the outset, it would have saved a lot of debate ever since and the investors could have made an informed decision. But now...do they believe a reputable scientist or do they believe just some theoretical opinion without site specific data?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Drawing a long bow there refer to Dr Grace as a reputable scientist. His current work is in PR. The first step to being reputable is understanding the limits of your specialisation.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...