Port Botany cruise terminal

[The_Big_M]

4 hours ago, in rod we trust said:

 

just as many times as you need to be told royal carribean are the ones lobbying the nsw liberals to build it in botany bay ..  and if Sydney as you say needs a third one then look for spots in Sydney harbor not botany bay  or bring in ships that can fit under the harbor bridge  if  royal or any other cruise line cant fit then see ya later other companies that can fit will take up there spots .. so there really isn't a need for one at botany bay .. what will you see at botany bay a cemetery and gas storage  containers , cranes oil wharf ,  nice view hey …  

 

I don't think I will be going on any more cruise ships ..  maybe the Disney one as I love the horns 

 

1) All the cruise lines are keen for a new terminal, just RCL has the greatest need

2) Spots have already been looked in Sydney harbour and this is the most practical choice. It's easy to make vague complaints like that, but when pressed one of your mob said the better choice is a national park! Shows how much commonsense and care for the environment your mob actually have.

3) A smaller terminal is already built but it suits very few, so no other companies can't fit and all have the same issue.

 

Which demonstrates your conclusion isn't met at all.

 

[The_Big_M]

2 hours ago, in rod we trust said:

 

all randwick and bayside council trucks have that on them as both councils are against it   

 

Yes, without any due process or study themselves, just reactionary. As bad as the state government you rail against.

[The_Big_M]

1 hour ago, in rod we trust said:

 

some people eat it I don't I just fish for a sport  its mainly disturbing the toxins that lay under the top layer of sand and yarra bay is probably the cleanest part of botany bay due to where it is..

 

Killing animals for fun. How environmentally friendly can you get.

 

No wonder there's little care for the environment with attitudes like that.

[in rod we trust]

12 minutes ago, The_Big_M said:

 

1) All the cruise lines are keen for a new terminal, just RCL has the greatest need

2) Spots have already been looked in Sydney harbour and this is the most practical choice. It's easy to make vague complaints like that, but when pressed one of your mob said the better choice is a national park! Shows how much commonsense and care for the environment your mob actually have.

3) A smaller terminal is already built but it suits very few, so no other companies can't fit and all have the same issue.

 

Which demonstrates your conclusion isn't met at all.

 

and how would you know what other spots have been looked at I can tell you but id like to see what other spots ..  besides garden island  and the chairperson of one of the reports made to gov to share garden island  with cruise ships was at the meeting saying it can be used with cruise ships.. but the gov took no notice of his report ..  you can look it up not even sure if its made public his name is peter Collins  AM QC

 

the issue port authority use and gov is they don't fit under the harbor bridge , mostly royal carribean ships ..  the cruise industry just wants more birth space thinking they will get more passengers but not all ships get booked out 

[in rod we trust]

5 minutes ago, The_Big_M said:

 

Yes, without any due process or study themselves, just reactionary. As bad as the state government you rail against.

 

the randwick and bayside councils  are conducting there own EPA and transport study etc into it and have seen what dredging has done to all the beach goers fish stocks etc they are sick of being used as sydneys dumping ground  

[in rod we trust]

12 minutes ago, The_Big_M said:

 

Killing animals for fun. How environmentally friendly can you get.

 

No wonder there's little care for the environment with attitudes like that.

no see as you have been all along clutching at straws as they say.... 

 

all my fish get put back alive .. we have size limits etc .. anything else you might want to use in your arguments  what happen to nimbysts  you haven't used that one for quite a while 

 

I wouldn't be mentioning the environment either considering what royal carribean want to do to botany and cayman islands also many other ports and reefs  around the globe they want to destroy .. sorry but you have no legs to stand on .. you skip from one thing to another where I have stayed true in my reports and facts 

Edited January 14, 2020 by in rod we trust

[gbenjo]

7 hours ago, in rod we trust said:

 

some people eat it I don't I just fish for a sport  its mainly disturbing the toxins that lay under the top layer of sand and yarra bay is probably the cleanest part of botany bay due to where it is..

So now Yarra Bay is the cleanest part of the Bay. Makes sense then to dredge it there as it will be the safest option...now we are getting somewhere.

[gbenjo]

6 hours ago, in rod we trust said:

and how would you know what other spots have been looked at I can tell you but id like to see what other spots ..  besides garden island  and the chairperson of one of the reports made to gov to share garden island  with cruise ships was at the meeting saying it can be used with cruise ships.. but the gov took no notice of his report ..  you can look it up not even sure if its made public his name is peter Collins  AM QC

 

the issue port authority use and gov is they don't fit under the harbor bridge , mostly royal carribean ships ..  the cruise industry just wants more birth space thinking they will get more passengers but not all ships get booked out 

Just a slight correction to your biased comment “ they don’t fit under the bridge, mostly Royal Caribbean “. Both Carnival ships, all of the Princess ships except Sun  and Sea, Cunard, Norwegian, P&O Aust new ships to come ( ex Princess) etc  that are home ported  here will not fit under the bridge. At least try and be a little more accurate with your comments .

[gbenjo]

9 hours ago, in rod we trust said:

 

all randwick and bayside council trucks have that on them as both councils are against it   

And they would need the whole fleet to remove some of the rubbish you and your lot are coming out with.

Edited January 14, 2020 by gbenjo

[MicCanberra]

8 hours ago, in rod we trust said:

So does Cruising

[MicCanberra]

6 hours ago, in rod we trust said:

all my fish get put back alive .. 

With holes in their mouths/ throats and severely traumatised.

[Aus Traveller]

4 hours ago, gbenjo said:

Just a slight correction to your biased comment “ they don’t fit under the bridge, mostly Royal Caribbean “. Both Carnival ships, all of the Princess ships except Sun  and Sea, Cunard, Norwegian, P&O Aust new ships to come ( ex Princess) etc  that are home ported  here will not fit under the bridge. At least try and be a little more accurate with your comments .

An example of how carefully Rod researches his facts.

[The_Big_M]

13 hours ago, in rod we trust said:

and how would you know what other spots have been looked at I can tell you but id like to see what other spots ..  besides garden island  and the chairperson of one of the reports made to gov to share garden island  with cruise ships was at the meeting saying it can be used with cruise ships.. but the gov took no notice of his report ..  you can look it up not even sure if its made public his name is peter Collins  AM QC

 

Because those of us with an interest in cruising have been following the facts and progress for some time, that's how we know.

 

And yes, the government took notice of his report as Yarra Bay and Molineux Point were two of the recommendations from his report.

 

13 hours ago, in rod we trust said:

the issue port authority use and gov is they don't fit under the harbor bridge , mostly royal carribean ships ..  the cruise industry just wants more birth space thinking they will get more passengers but not all ships get booked out 

 

Yes and that's a very valid issue. Or do you have a suggestion that you haven't shared yet that the Harbour Bridge be raised???

 

As for the occupancy of all the ships that don't fit under the Harbour Bridge your statement is again incorrect, and the majority are over booked (as headcount is on a twin share basis). They don't just run them half empty.

 

I'll leave the comments on the rest of your responses as others have already corrected them above...

Edited January 15, 2020 by The_Big_M

[in rod we trust]

8 hours ago, MicCanberra said:

So does Cruising

I  doubt that considering  the cruise industry is trying to destroy botany and cayman island as well as many other places on the planet ..

 

you would be boycotting any cruise line that wants to rip up the environment .. only when people start be responsible will things change by boycotting they would pull out of the idea and tell governments we don want any eco system or natural , or indigenous people's land destroyed.. 

[in rod we trust]

8 hours ago, MicCanberra said:

With holes in their mouths/ throats and severely traumatised.

 

so what do you think dredging all those cancer causing toxins  will do to the environment fish stocks , shell fish, etc etc not to mention sea grass  ..  

[in rod we trust]

2 hours ago, The_Big_M said:

 

Because those of us with an interest in cruising have been following the facts and progress for some time, that's how we know.

 

And yes, the government took notice of his report as Yarra Bay and Molineux Point were two of the recommendations from his report.

 

 

Yes and that's a very valid issue. Or do you have a suggestion that you haven't shared yet that the Harbour Bridge be raised???

 

As for the occupancy of all the ships that don't fit under the Harbour Bridge your statement is again incorrect, and the majority are over booked (as headcount is on a twin share basis). They don't just run them half empty.

 

I'll leave the comments on the rest of your responses as others have already corrected them above...

 

for all I care they can go under the bridge and get stuck who cares about it I don't study how big all ships that come into the harbor  as when im in the harbor I always see them at white bay or barangaroo  when that was a terminal .. phill Collins report was for garden island not botany bay ..he was at our meeting 

 

no matter what way you present it your just clutching at straws ..   as there is no reason as to why they would risk a whole bay just for royal carribean oasis class ships .. I thing   good that has come out of these bushfires is people are now more aware of government destruction and in  favour big companies over the environment .. and the change is coming so thank god for that.. people are starting is change maybe not couple of you's on here that still rather a cruise port for  convenience  no matter what is destroyed to get it .. that's just selfish .. destroy your own country for your convenience  .. how great is that ..  id be ashamed of that  ..

 

I don't live anywhere near botany but yet still don't want to see it destroyed , I cruise when I can might not be as much or as regular as some of you blokes  , but at least im willing to save our country and the land I love over cruising .. 

Edited January 15, 2020 by in rod we trust

[GUT2407]

You’d think Rod would want them to clean up the toxic sludge.

[GUT2407]

And blowed if I know how a cruise terminal can damage a Bay, that according to our local Expert is full of toxic sludge

[in rod we trust]

8 hours ago, gbenjo said:

And they would need the whole fleet to remove some of the rubbish you and your lot are coming out with.

is that why you go on cruise ships so much dump all your excess verbal rubbish overboard ..  right ok now I get where you at .. you need oasis class you need a bigger ship  

[in rod we trust]

Just now, GUT2407 said:

And blowed if I know how a cruise terminal can damage a Bay, that according to our local Expert is full of toxic sludge

 

not going to bother answering  as you blokes are in denial of the amount of damage .. your to worried about port of convenience rather than save your own country..  and even after all the wildlife killed in bushfires .. I guess out of sight out of mind for you blokes when it comes to eco system, or any other reason's that I have posted that are facts. if ya cant see the destruction or never have, then you don't believe it or maybe you just rather believe  the gov when they say it will be fine. just like the rfa told them the bushland was dry and they could have a massive bush fire.. but the nsw liberals and federal gov  refused to believe the rfa and did nothing now look at the destruction it caused 

[MicCanberra]

38 minutes ago, GUT2407 said:

You’d think Rod would want them to clean up the toxic sludge.

It helps with giving the fish more fins.

[MicCanberra]

Wouldn't it be good if when they built the new terminal they also cleaned up the toxic sludge.

[Aus Traveller]

49 minutes ago, in rod we trust said:

 just like the rfa told them the bushland was dry and they could have a massive bush fire.. but the nsw liberals and federal gov  refused to believe the rfa and did nothing now look at the destruction it caused 

Rod's comments that I have quoted are incorrect. Here is a report on ABC News about hazard reduction burning:

 

Fuel reduction burns are primarily a state government responsibility and they conduct burns over hundreds of thousands of hectares each year.

In Victoria, 130,044 hectares of public land was burned across 251 burns in 2018–19.

A further 12,000 hectares had fuel reduced using other methods, such as machines clearing undergrowth, while 31,750 hectares of private land had planned burns that were run in conjunction with the Country Fire Authority (CFA).

The NSW Rural Fire Service (RFS) says it and partner agencies protected 113,130 properties through hazard reduction works during the same period.

Almost 200,000 hectares were burnt in hazard reduction operations, which was 106 per cent of its target.

According to a Queensland Fire and Emergency Services (QFES) spokesperson, the Queensland Government conducted 117 of 168 planned hazard reduction burns.

QFES did not provide a figure on the total area burned.

"In 2019, not all hazard reduction burns could be completed. In some areas it rapidly became too dry to burn safely," the spokesperson said.

"In other areas it was too wet too early on and dried out rapidly, leaving a short window of opportunity to safely conduct mitigation activities."

 

Firstly, it is clear that hazard reduction burning are nothing to do with the Federal Government. In our federation the management of the land, and fighting bush fires, is a State responsibility. According to the report I have quoted above, Victoria, NSW and Q'ld all carried hazard reduction burning. The report also stated that they need "Goldilocks" conditions before they burn - hot and dry enough for the undergrowth to burn, but not too hot and dry so it can get out of control. An example of one that went disastrously wrong was the Wilsons Prom burn in 2005 that got out of control and required the evacuation of around 600 people.

Edited January 15, 2020 by Aus Traveller

[Chiliburn]

Do you think rod and his mates aren’t thinking properly from eating those fish they caught dioxin bay.

[Aus Traveller]

1 minute ago, Chiliburn said:

Do you think rod and his mates aren’t thinking properly from eating those fish they caught dioxin bay.

He says he doesn't eat the fish he catches. He releases them.🙂