Port Botany cruise terminal

[gbenjo]

5 minutes ago, in rod we trust said:

 

they are floating garbage can's .. they do more harm to the environment and eco system than good … this world is on a tipping point atm ..so its just a matter of time when people will see just how bad they are and stop cruising or boycott these ships .. there are protest happening all over the world , they have the hide  to even want to destroy the cayman islands just for greed and now botany bay just for there greed .. times are changing people are being conscious of the environment now .. so its just a matter of time .. liberal gov of nsw is stuffing up by the day so when they get booted out the port will not be built 

Thanks for the heads up, I was planning a couple more cruises for next year so now I will not worry about it, seeing that everybody will be boycotting cruising and maybe even by then the world will have ended with all those cruise lines destroying the world for profit....but hang on ...if they destroy the world for profit there will be no one left to make the profit from....hmmm doesnt make much sense does it.......could you please enlighten us mere mortals.

[in rod we trust]

Just now, gbenjo said:

Unless it is already built.

 

nope we have elections before its built so its ok .. but even better is  more and more people by the day are starting to just see how bad these floating garbage can's are for the environment and that there are no positives at all for destroying botany bay or any other bays around the world just for these massive garbage cans .. people are getting sick of these massive garbage can's. too many people with only certain amount of entertainment on these ships without having to line up take a number   people need to send clear message as they are now hands off our bays … don't worry I know you like royal carribean but people will be calling to boycott them as they are already ..  

[in rod we trust]

5 minutes ago, gbenjo said:

Thanks for the heads up, I was planning a couple more cruises for next year so now I will not worry about it, seeing that everybody will be boycotting cruising and maybe even by then the world will have ended with all those cruise lines destroying the world for profit....but hang on ...if they destroy the world for profit there will be no one left to make the profit from....hmmm doesnt make much sense does it.......could you please enlighten us mere mortals.

nope cant enlighten you there is no hope of that .. I know its sad but only one who's eyes are open can be enlighten ,  so that counts you out … let me know when you are going so we can arrange a blockout of the harbor to royal carribean ships so you can spend extra time on board 

[gbenjo]

5 minutes ago, in rod we trust said:

 

nope we have elections before its built so its ok .. but even better is  more and more people by the day are starting to just see how bad these floating garbage can's are for the environment and that there are no positives at all for destroying botany bay or any other bays around the world just for these massive garbage cans .. people are getting sick of these massive garbage can's. too many people with only certain amount of entertainment on these ships without having to line up take a number   people need to send clear message as they are now hands off our bays … don't worry I know you like royal carribean but people will be calling to boycott them as they are already ..  

But the other mob have to win first.

The boycott must really be working....I see the Royal ships heading out pretty much full all the time.

[lyndarra]

So if the new garment gets in and contracts have been signed already , the new garment will have to honour those contracts or pay MASSIVE compensation. So massive that the new garment will say "stuff it" let them build it.

[gbenjo]

10 minutes ago, in rod we trust said:

nope cant enlighten you there is no hope of that .. I know its sad but only one who's eyes are open can be enlighten ,  so that counts you out … let me know when you are going so we can arrange a blockout of the harbor to royal carribean ships so you can spend extra time on board 

Of course you cant explain ......you have got no idea,evident by the rubbish you peddle here and when challenged you just drag out the same old unfounded dribble."The end is nigh"

Could you please then explain what is a blockout of the harbour, who would arrange this and how would I get to spend extra time on board??????????

[gbenjo]

19 minutes ago, lyndarra said:

So if the new garment gets in and contracts have been signed already , the new garment will have to honour those contracts or pay MASSIVE compensation. So massive that the new garment will say "stuff it" let them build it.

Don't you hate that preemptive  word thing.😀  Obviously our mate doesn't have it.

But if that "garment" was made of wool, they would try and pull it over our eyes...if the greens let them.

Edited January 20, 2020 by gbenjo

[in rod we trust]

11 minutes ago, gbenjo said:

Of course you cant explain ......you have got no idea,evident by the rubbish you peddle here and when challenged you just drag out the same old unfounded dribble."The end is nigh"

Could you please then explain what is a blockout of the harbour, who would arrange this and how would I get to spend extra time on board??????????

 I have put up all evidence and facts ..  you just ignore it as you have the blinkers on ..

 

im still waiting on all the positives as to why a whole bay  needs to be destroyed just for royal carribean mega floating garbage cans ..  there is no positives that's why the port authority and nsw liberals are hiding the full report from the public .. so you cannot see the destruction .. 

[gbenjo]

6 minutes ago, in rod we trust said:

 I have put up all evidence and facts ..  you just ignore it as you have the blinkers on ..

 

im still waiting on all the positives as to why a whole bay  needs to be destroyed just for royal carribean mega floating garbage cans ..  there is no positives that's why the port authority and nsw liberals are hiding the full report from the public .. so you cannot see the destruction .. 

like I said ..just keep dragging out  the same old  rubbish........the ridiculous claims you make are not evidence or facts......just ramblings.

 

YOU DO NOT KNOW THE BAY WILL BE DESTROYED AND IT IS NOT JUST FOR ROYAL CARIBBEAN.

and you forgot to explain about the blockout etc

Edited January 20, 2020 by gbenjo

[in rod we trust]

10 minutes ago, gbenjo said:

Don't you hate that preemptive  word thing.😀  But if that "garment" was made of wool, they would try and pull it over our eyes...if the greens let them.

they pulled it over your eyes .. because you choose to put cruising ahead of the destruction it causes but that's ok just like we seen with many things the world is at a tipping point so you might as well enjoy as many cruises as you can and just let them destroy anything they can to build there ports..  you don't have to worry let your kids or the next generation of kids cop it  stuff the kids and grand kids  ..hell I reckon we should just let the rest of the bush burn kill all the wildlife so we can sell them lands to overseas investors , koala , kangaroo's . marsupials don't pay taxes ..stuff em lets bulldoze there lands and build build build or sell it all of ..  lets just send the fire fighters home and let the country burn wont have to spend money bulldozing it down ..   now im thinking like you  cheers I see where and what ya getting at its all about our convenience 

 

[in rod we trust]

10 minutes ago, gbenjo said:

like I said ..just keep dragging out  the same old  rubbish........the ridiculous claims you make are not evidence or facts......just ramblings.

 

YOU DO NOT KNOW THE BAY WILL BE DESTROYED AND IT IS NOT JUST FOR ROYAL CARIBBEAN.

and you forgot to explain about the blockout etc

 can you tell me any different why it will not destroy the bay

 many people have seen the effects of the past on it and the EPA states the bay should not be dredged due to the toxins settled on the seabed .. have you ever seen the terrible winds and swell that hits the bay in summer lately did you see what past dreging has done to sea grass and the eco system  im guessing no,  all you care about is convenience so you can get on your ship easier  and don't give a rats on what is at stake ..  and as I mentioned many times why is the nsw liberal gov and port authority hiding the report from public view . its not a national security issue .  so why hide it.. the full un redacted report  may contain info that show's it wont destroy anything and I might see that as will others . but I doubt it they are hiding it t so you don't see the destruction it will cause .. if you don't understand that you never will.. 

[lyndarra]

27 minutes ago, gbenjo said:

Don't you hate that preemptive  word thing.😀  Obviously our mate doesn't have it.

But if that "garment" was made of wool, they would try and pull it over our eyes...if the greens let them.

Sorry, pre-emptive is not to blame it's just me amusing myself to brighten up an otherwise dull day of housework. "Garment" came about on my first tour in China. Our guide occasionally mentioned his garment (my brain tends to process things literally and visually) until I figured out he was saying government.

A while back when I was writing up my shopping list and I needed eggs, I wrote down "iggs".   This happened just after returning from a cruise to NZ. I still do it.

[gbenjo]

4 minutes ago, in rod we trust said:

 can you tell me any different why it will not destroy the bay

 many people have seen the effects of the past on it and the EPA states the bay should not be dredged due to the toxins settled on the seabed .. have you ever seen the terrible winds and swell that hits the bay in summer lately did you see what past dreging has done to sea grass and the eco system  im guessing no,  all you care about is convenience so you can get on your ship easier  and don't give a rats on what is at stake ..  and as I mentioned many times why is the nsw liberal gov and port authority hiding the report from public view . its not a national security issue .  so why hide it.. the full un redacted report  may contain info that show's it wont destroy anything and I might see that as will others . but I doubt it they are hiding it t so you don't see the destruction it will cause .. if you don't understand that you never will.. 

Like I said ...the same old tired nonsensical answer.... Nothing new..nothing constructive  just the same old rant.

 

But no, I cannot tell you fore sure it will not destroy the Bay and I cannot tell you for that it will...I don't know..you don't know so why go off half cocked but I am willing to listen to BOTH sides when we know a lot more about what they will and will not do.

Edited January 20, 2020 by gbenjo

[in rod we trust]

8 minutes ago, gbenjo said:

Like I said ...the same old tired nonsensical answer.... Nothing new..nothing constructive  just the same old rant.

 

yet I don't see any info from you as why it wont destroy the bay or destroy the last remaining beach on the northside of botany that the indigenous people still use today and the last beach still in use by them in the Sydney basin area..  or the eco system or the family friendly area or anything else for that matter ..  so long as you get a port for convenience stuff what's  at risk ..    

 

oh wait you have no real proof or info as the port authority and nsw liberals  don't want to make it public .. 

 

Edited January 20, 2020 by in rod we trust

[The_Big_M]

5 minutes ago, gbenjo said:

Like I said ...the same old tired nonsensical answer.... Nothing new..nothing constructive  just the same old rant.

 

To be fair, it appears there is something new. A new claim that "EPA states the bay should not be dredged".

 

Of course, they said no such thing. It appears to be twisting a warning about disturbing the sediment on connecting flows. But that doesn't sound as good for his position and is something you can deal with instead of a blanket ban.

[Wavell]

I.R.W.T I have done 40 odd cruises over 30 years all over the world.On 1 cruise we had Sir David Attenborough as a guest speaker and he enjoyed his time on the  ["floating garbage can  ] as you call them.    join destinction they will listen to you.

[in rod we trust]

Just now, The_Big_M said:

 

To be fair, it appears there is something new. A new claim that "EPA states the bay should not be dredged".

 

Of course, they said no such thing. It appears to be twisting a warning about disturbing the sediment on connecting flows. But that doesn't sound as good for his position and is something you can deal with instead of a blanket ban.

its not new its fact .. why is it that most bottom dwelling fish in botany bay and Sydney harbor has a warning on how much of it you can eat ..  wouldn't happen to be the toxins would it ..   but like I said as long as the port goes ahead for your convenience stuff what at risk ..  maybe you can tell me why it wont put all those facts I mention  will destroy the bay at risk ,  you seem to be more well informed than most on here not all but most so maybe you have reason's or id prefer facts as why it wont destroy it

[The_Big_M]

12 minutes ago, in rod we trust said:

 

yet I don't see any info from you as why it wont destroy the bay or destroy the last remaining beach on the northside of botany that the indigenous people still use today and the last beach still in use by them in the Sydney basin area..  or the eco system or the family friendly area or anything else for that matter ..  so long as you get a port for convenience stuff what's  at risk ..    

 

oh wait you have no real proof or info as the port authority and nsw liberals  don't want to make it public .. 

 

 

It's not "for convenience." It's actually to provide capacity which is currently limited, so it is a necessity for that market.

 

Your previous deflection then gave the alternatives of Eden, Wollongong or Newcastle. However, they're different cities entirely and would have a far greater eco impact (and "gridlock impact") than the bus ride from Botany to the city that you go on about. So try some consistency in your arguments instead of just repeating the same old fear based arguments which lack logic.

[in rod we trust]

4 minutes ago, Wavell said:

I.R.W.T I have done 40 odd cruises over 30 years all over the world.On 1 cruise we had Sir David Attenborough as a guest speaker and he enjoyed his time on the  ["floating garbage can  ] as you call them.    join destinction they will listen to you.

I been hearing they are planning a protest against royal carribean ..  against these garbage can's  pollution  and destruction of botany bay..  im in no nut case groups except this one here .. 

[The_Big_M]

Just now, in rod we trust said:

its not new its fact .. why is it that most bottom dwelling fish in botany bay and Sydney harbor has a warning on how much of it you can eat ..  wouldn't happen to be the toxins would it ..   but like I said as long as the port goes ahead for your convenience stuff what at risk ..  maybe you can tell me why it wont put all those facts I mention  will destroy the bay at risk ,  you seem to be more well informed than most on here not all but most so maybe you have reason's or id prefer facts as why it wont destroy it

 

I acknowledged the warnings existed; the cleanliness of the sediment is not in dispute.

 

However, the issue is your claim that EPA said Botany Bay should not be dredged. They have not said that. However, there is a warning on connecting channels as it is something to be aware of and hence where sediment is disturbed it needs to be handled correctly. Think of it like asbestos - also very harmful so warnings exist wherever renovations occur involving it, but given special handling it can be dealt with.

[in rod we trust]

3 minutes ago, The_Big_M said:

 

It's not "for convenience." It's actually to provide capacity which is currently limited, so it is a necessity for that market.

 

Your previous deflection then gave the alternatives of Eden, Wollongong or Newcastle. However, they're different cities entirely and would have a far greater eco impact (and "gridlock impact") than the bus ride from Botany to the city that you go on about. So try some consistency in your arguments instead of just repeating the same old fear based arguments which lack logic.

if you read royal carribeans report they still plan on taking a cruise up to Sydney harbor  for those passengers that get on at botany bay so they can see the views and linger around for 4 odd hrs not docked so .. it don't matter if they get on at Newcastle Wollongong or eden they still will get to see Sydney .. 

[in rod we trust]

2 minutes ago, The_Big_M said:

 

I acknowledged the warnings existed; the cleanliness of the sediment is not in dispute.

 

However, the issue is your claim that EPA said Botany Bay should not be dredged. They have not said that. However, there is a warning on connecting channels as it is something to be aware of and hence where sediment is disturbed it needs to be handled correctly. Think of it like asbestos - also very harmful so warnings exist wherever renovations occur involving it, but given special handling it can be dealt with.

maybe on land it can you can wet it down or evacuate people in surrounding building etc or wait till a day when there is no winds .. but in the water with swells , wind and undercurrents , you have no control as where that sediments will end up or destroy

[MicCanberra]

Someone said the other day that cruising is much better for the environment than fishing or building dams.

Maybe the government should make cruising compulsory , especially out of Botany Bay, not only will it justify building the new terminal there but it will also alleviate the water usage in the dams.

[gbenjo]

19 minutes ago, in rod we trust said:

if you read royal carribeans report they still plan on taking a cruise up to Sydney harbor  for those passengers that get on at botany bay so they can see the views and linger around for 4 odd hrs not docked so .. it don't matter if they get on at Newcastle Wollongong or eden they still will get to see Sydney .. 

Which  report is this you speak of? Where can I find it?The one you posted previously only said they were lobbying the govt to build the new terminal.

[in rod we trust]

3 minutes ago, gbenjo said:

Which  report is this you speak of? Where can I find it?The one you posted previously only said they were lobbying the govt to build the new terminal.

if you bothered to read some of them you would know and seen it from there ceo's ..  go back and look .