Jump to content
Cruise Critic Community
Chiliburn

Port Botany cruise terminal

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, GUT2407 said:

Yet still you allow your wife to cruise, just not on Royal. 

 

 yep  but she is steering away from cruising atm as she  rather fly there spend more time at the location she is visiting  than being stuck on a ship ..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, The_Big_M said:

 

Well, that aint reality as at this stage there is not sufficient information for any detailed environmental impacts. That comes later when they do the environmental impact study.

 

if they didn't release the port authority report in full , what makes you think the EIS will be released in full … you know and I know it wont  nsw liberals will use the same act cabinet in conference  ..   so they can hide behind it ..

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Hey all REAL cruisers ..Just for a bit of fun, how about when we reply to our friend Rod we redact parts  of our  post. It really will not make any difference as he will still read into it what he wants and disregard any relevant facts anyway. 😂😂 😱😱

Edited by gbenjo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, in rod we trust said:

 

 yep  but she is steering away from cruising atm as she  rather fly there spend more time at the location she is visiting  than being stuck on a ship ..

 

So you rail against the environmental damage of cruising yet again are happy to fly which is comparably environmentally harmful.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, in rod we trust said:

 

if they didn't release the port authority report in full , what makes you think the EIS will be released in full … you know and I know it wont  nsw liberals will use the same act cabinet in conference  ..   so they can hide behind it ..

 

 

I don't know whether they will or they won't.

 

However, you can't assume they are the same. As already explained to you multiple times, it is the commercial and contractual elements that are typically withheld in the business cases.

 

An EIS is not about _commercial_ elements.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I cannot  xxxxxxx xxxxx that, it xxxxxxx makes it xxxx to be a xxxxxxx  and that is all I have to xxx about that.

 

Words have been redacted due to Bar cabinet in confidence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
6 hours ago, The_Big_M said:

 

I don't know whether they will or they won't.

 

However, you can't assume they are the same. As already explained to you multiple times, it is the commercial and contractual elements that are typically withheld in the business cases.

 

An EIS is not about _commercial_ elements.

the EIS is  if you think about it as dredging is still going to cost money , what  to do with the spoil sediment all cost money and there will be tender's for that to..  

 

you can hide behind saying its for contract purpose but the truth is they don't want anyone seeing the negative sides to it ..

 

now really do we need to destroy that whole area just  royal carribean and for peoples convenience .. have we not seen enough damage from the drought ,  bushfires and what it has done to the wildlife  and rivers , do we really need to destroy a whole bay and the eco system as well...

 

big  M do you work for the cruise industry in anyway  shape or form ..  to me reads as if you do .. 

 

 

 

 

Edited by in rod we trust

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, in rod we trust said:

 

if they didn't release the port authority report in full , what makes you think the EIS will be released in full … you know and I know it wont  nsw liberals will use the same act cabinet in conference  ..   so they can hide behind it ..

 

Worse than "Days of Our Lives", bear in mind that it is also people who think like our rod that have for years prevented the annual underbrush clearing and burning, which is contributing greatly to our bushfire problem at the moment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Russell21 said:

Worse than "Days of Our Lives", bear in mind that it is also people who think like our rod that have for years prevented the annual underbrush clearing and burning, which is contributing greatly to our bushfire problem at the moment.

It is a bit of a stretch of imagination to lump Rod with contributing to the bush-fires.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, Russell21 said:

Worse than "Days of Our Lives", bear in mind that it is also people who think like our rod that have for years prevented the annual underbrush clearing and burning, which is contributing greatly to our bushfire problem at the moment.

 

Still telling lies I see. Is this going to be the mantra from right wing numpties from here on?

 

"Nothing to see here, but if there is it's all the greenies fault."

 

I'll say it again for the hard of reading. Greens and greenies are not preventing preventative burnings. Controlled burnings are not a cure all. They can be as dangerous as any other fire if they are used in the wrong conditions. The wrong conditions are almost all year round now.

 

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-09-13/is-the-prescribed-burn-window-closing-in-australia/10236048

 

From Sept 2018:

"Deputy chief fire officer with Forest Fire Management (FFA) Victoria, Darrin McKenzie, said autumn burning this year was particularly challenging and the state only managed to achieve about 30 per cent of prescribed burning programs."

"The bushfire season ran into early April and most of the 66,000 hectares of prescribed burning the state managed to achieve was condensed into a two-and-a-half week window."

 

Just stop the lies.

 

To those who say this is not appropriate in this thread. I don't raise these topics, but if lies go unchallenged they quickly become "perceived wisdom". If people would stop lying I would happily stop contesting those lies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, SinbadThePorter said:

 

Still telling lies I see. Is this going to be the mantra from right wing numpties from here on?

 

"Nothing to see here, but if there is it's all the greenies fault."

 

I'll say it again for the hard of reading. Greens and greenies are not preventing preventative burnings. Controlled burnings are not a cure all. They can be as dangerous as any other fire if they are used in the wrong conditions. The wrong conditions are almost all year round now.

 

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-09-13/is-the-prescribed-burn-window-closing-in-australia/10236048

 

From Sept 2018:

"Deputy chief fire officer with Forest Fire Management (FFA) Victoria, Darrin McKenzie, said autumn burning this year was particularly challenging and the state only managed to achieve about 30 per cent of prescribed burning programs."

"The bushfire season ran into early April and most of the 66,000 hectares of prescribed burning the state managed to achieve was condensed into a two-and-a-half week window."

 

Just stop the lies.

 

To those who say this is not appropriate in this thread. I don't raise these topics, but if lies go unchallenged they quickly become "perceived wisdom". If people would stop lying I would happily stop contesting those lies.

Here Here 👍

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Russell21 said:

Worse than "Days of Our Lives", bear in mind that it is also people who think like our rod that have for years prevented the annual underbrush clearing and burning, which is contributing greatly to our bushfire problem at the moment.

 

what a load of crap I go camping .. the state gov manages the forrest the rfa does back burning and the councils are the one's who stop people clearing vegetation ..  that's the way tho go look for people to blame for it ..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, in rod we trust said:

the EIS is  if you think about it as dredging is still going to cost money , what  to do with the spoil sediment all cost money and there will be tender's for that to..  

 

you can hide behind saying its for contract purpose but the truth is they don't want anyone seeing the negative sides to it ..

 

now really do we need to destroy that whole area just  royal carribean and for peoples convenience .. have we not seen enough damage from the drought ,  bushfires and what it has done to the wildlife  and rivers , do we really need to destroy a whole bay and the eco system as well...

 

big  M do you work for the cruise industry in anyway  shape or form ..  to me reads as if you do .. 

 

There may be consequences arising from the EIS that may need money, but the EIS is not specifically talking about the cost of them, and doesn't require tenders. It states the impacts and what work may be required, but is not commercial info. As such, it should be disclosed.

 

I'm not hiding behind it, I'm explaining why they exclude those elements of it. I also think too much is covered up and hidden by this administration, but that doesn't change the situation.

 

And then you're off with the sweeping generalisations without basis again. Really?

 

Odd that you think I work for the cruise industry, given some of my previous posts in this thread.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 I have put up facts about why it should not be built there ..  but some on here just like to dismiss it ,  

I have put up the report from port authority on here that has been redacted by port authority so nobody can read it ,  

 

 you can go ahead and attack me with rubbish  but the truth in the matter is this terminal is far to dangerous to be built at port botany in many  many ways 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, By The Bay said:

It is a bit of a stretch of imagination to lump Rod with contributing to the bush-fires.

 

It's similar to the straw man approach to arguments. Create a fictitious story related to the person you're challenging that can be attacked, then attack that.

 

Though to be fair, Rod's been doing similar too with all the claims that because something bad has happened somewhere else, and/or in the past, it's going to happen at Botany Bay as well...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, in rod we trust said:

 I have put up facts about why it should not be built there ..  but some on here just like to dismiss it ,  

 

You've put up your possible fears about why it should not be built - not facts.

 

4 minutes ago, in rod we trust said:

I have put up the report from port authority on here that has been redacted by port authority so nobody can read it ,  

 

That part is true. But it's not intended for public release, it's just the initial business case about whether funding should be spent for which detailed business cases to be prepared.

 

4 minutes ago, in rod we trust said:

 you can go ahead and attack me with rubbish  but the truth in the matter is this terminal is far to dangerous to be built at port botany in many  many ways 

 

As above, nobody supports attacking you with rubbish, so many defended you in that. But the truth of the terminal is there will be pros and cons and those are yet to be determined, so it's not known yet what is good or bad.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, The_Big_M said:

 

There may be consequences arising from the EIS that may need money, but the EIS is not specifically talking about the cost of them, and doesn't require tenders. It states the impacts and what work may be required, but is not commercial info. As such, it should be disclosed.

 

I'm not hiding behind it, I'm explaining why they exclude those elements of it. I also think too much is covered up and hidden by this administration, but that doesn't change the situation.

 

And then you're off with the sweeping generalisations without basis again. Really?

 

Odd that you think I work for the cruise industry, given some of my previous posts in this thread.

 

 

well if that's the case on the EIS study how can the port authority put in cost in there report if they don't know the extent of the toxic waste that is a well know fact sitting on the bottom of the bay and the impact of it,  or how they are going about it or what to do with those millions of dredged spoil ..  what just dump it out at sea so it will end up at our beaches along the coast like the previous lot from port extension and desal plant..

 

as soon as another member said its for contract reason they redacted all the vital info you jumped on that wagon .. you asked for the report , I told you many post ago that its useless as it been redacted , so I posted the  report just so you can see it was redacted.

 

I posted that nobody would be able to get the full report  and that was a fact , its there for you to see 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, The_Big_M said:

 

You've put up your possible fears about why it should not be built - not facts.

 

 

That part is true. But it's not intended for public release, it's just the initial business case about whether funding should be spent for which detailed business cases to be prepared.

 

 

As above, nobody supports attacking you with rubbish, so many defended you in that. But the truth of the terminal is there will be pros and cons and those are yet to be determined, so it's not known yet what is good or bad.

 

no fears facts ,  they are all well known ..  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, The_Big_M said:

 

You've put up your possible fears about why it should not be built - not facts.

 

 

That part is true. But it's not intended for public release, it's just the initial business case about whether funding should be spent for which detailed business cases to be prepared.

 

 

As above, nobody supports attacking you with rubbish, so many defended you in that. But the truth of the terminal is there will be pros and cons and those are yet to be determined, so it's not known yet what is good or bad.

 

the   report has been redacted  and not for the public to see in the port authority report I posted.

there are pro and cons stated , but its been redacted so how are you supposed to make a judgement if you cannot get the full report ..  

at least what I state as facts are all out there to be verified ..  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, in rod we trust said:

 

well if that's the case on the EIS study how can the port authority put in cost in there report if they don't know the extent of the toxic waste that is a well know fact sitting on the bottom of the bay and the impact of it,  or how they are going about it or what to do with those millions of dredged spoil ..  what just dump it out at sea so it will end up at our beaches along the coast like the previous lot from port extension and desal plant..

 

as soon as another member said its for contract reason they redacted all the vital info you jumped on that wagon .. you asked for the report , I told you many post ago that its useless as it been redacted , so I posted the  report just so you can see it was redacted.

 

I posted that nobody would be able to get the full report  and that was a fact , its there for you to see 

 

The port authority will have to budget for a solution (or provide a response) to any issues that are in the EIS. It's not up to the EIS to fix it, but the port authority.

 

We asked for the report as you were making claims based on the report. However, the report doesn't show anything to support your claims, hence confirming you did not have a basis to make them (aside from saying they were not given to you)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, in rod we trust said:

no fears facts ,  they are all well known ..  

 

Not facts about the proposal, just your fears.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, The_Big_M said:

 

The port authority will have to budget for a solution (or provide a response) to any issues that are in the EIS. It's not up to the EIS to fix it, but the port authority.

 

We asked for the report as you were making claims based on the report. However, the report doesn't show anything to support your claims, hence confirming you did not have a basis to make them (aside from saying they were not given to you)

 

wasn't making any claims based on the port authority report  ,except for some facts 

1 that the report would not be made in full to the public and is hiding behind cabinet in conference 

2  they redacted all the important info needed for anybody from public eye to make a judgement 

3 the amount of dredging required due to the dock size and turning basin 

4 the location of the processing terminal pax .. that due to the size of the docks and there location they cannot build a terminal on the dock and as mention by port authority passenger maybe transport to a facility near by for processing ..

5  breakwall will have to be constructed due to how close it is to the heads , , swell , wind, wave action

6 the dock will be less than 100mtrs from the gas storage facility 

7 the airport authority has placed a limit on ships in botany bay must be within 48 mtrs max from water line , oasis class is 72 mtrs from water line. they have also mention it is a danger to landing planes .. 

there is probably few more to that I have left out

 

 

 

the rest of the facts I made are on record and known.. and plain as day to see 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, SinbadThePorter said:

 

Still telling lies I see. Is this going to be the mantra from right wing numpties from here on?

 

"Nothing to see here, but if there is it's all the greenies fault."

 

I'll say it again for the hard of reading. Greens and greenies are not preventing preventative burnings. Controlled burnings are not a cure all. They can be as dangerous as any other fire if they are used in the wrong conditions. The wrong conditions are almost all year round now.

 

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-09-13/is-the-prescribed-burn-window-closing-in-australia/10236048

 

From Sept 2018:

"Deputy chief fire officer with Forest Fire Management (FFA) Victoria, Darrin McKenzie, said autumn burning this year was particularly challenging and the state only managed to achieve about 30 per cent of prescribed burning programs."

"The bushfire season ran into early April and most of the 66,000 hectares of prescribed burning the state managed to achieve was condensed into a two-and-a-half week window."

 

Just stop the lies.

 

To those who say this is not appropriate in this thread. I don't raise these topics, but if lies go unchallenged they quickly become "perceived wisdom". If people would stop lying I would happily stop contesting those lies.

 

as much as I hate people changing topics in a thread  my hat goes of to you and I agree with what you posted 100% …  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Forum Jump
    • Categories
      • Forum Assistance
      • New Cruisers
      • Cruise Lines “A – O”
      • Cruise Lines “P – Z”
      • River Cruising
      • ROLL CALLS
      • Digital Photography & Cruise Technology
      • Member Cruise Reviews
      • Special Interest Cruising
      • Cruise Discussion Topics
      • UK Cruising
      • Australia & New Zealand Cruisers
      • North American Homeports
      • Ports of Call
      • Cruise Conversations

Announcements

×
×
  • Create New...