- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Cancellation of Mid-Barataria Diversion project could cost Louisiana at least $700 million
Posted on 5/10/24 at 2:59 pm to Marshhen
Posted on 5/10/24 at 2:59 pm to Marshhen
quote:
Well, I have developed 10 formal bids for dredging projects in the past 6 months
So that narrows you down to someone who works for either:
1) a private dredge contractor, who would stand to benefit most from redirected funds from diversions, or
2) MVN navigation ops, and the USACE is has proven they really know how to run a delta over the longterm
Maybe 50k/acre is a pure line item in a bid tab on $/CY basis, but once you add in all of the entirely necessary ancillary line items like the permitting and land rights and geotech and surveying it is never 50k/acre except in the smallest of projects
2
Posted on 5/10/24 at 3:07 pm to man in the stadium
quote:
So that narrows you down to someone who works for either: 1) a private dredge contractor, who would stand to benefit most from redirected funds from diversions, or 2) MVN navigation ops, and the USACE is has proven they really know how to run a delta over the longterm
Wrong
Posted on 5/10/24 at 3:14 pm to man in the stadium
quote:
Maybe 50k/acre is a pure line item in a bid tab on $/CY basis, but once you add in all of the entirely necessary ancillary line items like the permitting and land rights and geotech and surveying it is never 50k/acre except in the smallest of projects
Just an FYI, since you think you are an expert, it gets much cheaper (per CY or acre) the bigger your project gets.
Posted on 5/10/24 at 3:31 pm to KamaCausey_LSU
"...a billion dollars, or $700 million, or whatever...."
---"A billion here, a billion there, and pretty soon you're talking about real money."--Senator Everett Dirksen
---"A billion here, a billion there, and pretty soon you're talking about real money."--Senator Everett Dirksen
Posted on 5/10/24 at 3:45 pm to Trout Bandit
quote:
Y'all two need to frick and get over it.
Agreed. Both have points. One subtly started to slip in the required data.
I’ve been involved a little bit in fairly large earthmoving projects. I know what one is trying to say about the price per acre.
But you are not figuring squat unless you calculate volume. Leaving depth out of the equation makes it impossible to calculate the amount of material to be moved. Therefore you can’t calculate Time, Man Hours, Equipment , etc.
TL/DR. You got to have the numbers to give an accurate cost of services. There is no other way.
I’m tired. I’m going to take a boat ride. Want to look at the marsh before it washes away, as it will. I’ve said this was going to happen since 1970 or so.
This post was edited on 5/10/24 at 3:46 pm
Posted on 5/10/24 at 3:52 pm to KamaCausey_LSU
Cancellation of this project will ensure Baton Rouge is the new coastline in 20 years
Posted on 5/10/24 at 4:04 pm to Marshhen
quote:
Just an FYI, since you think you are an expert, it gets much cheaper (per CY or acre) the bigger your project gets.
In a theoretical case with an infinite placement area and infinite borrow source, sure, but once again, you are grossly over-simplifying and ignoring what happens in reality.
This never happens functionally due to the nature of the funding the state is using to pay for these things or the nature of the projects, which end up requiring multiple dredge cycles and/or borrow sources in the river. The state ends up cobbling together funding sources or has one-off funding sources such that either their projects are always size-limited or they're linking multiple borrow sources and dredging cycles to come back to the same area like the Barataria landbridge / Lake Hermitage / Spanish Pass type projects. Because of this, you now are mobing and demobing multiple times, adding in boosters, etc., and thus your theoretical values in a vacuum have never been and will never be reality.
I am glad you've educated yourself to arm chair qb status. I say without sarcasm that it is a noble endeavor; at least you know a little more than the average person and a lot more than Gordon Dove. I encourage you to continue on your educational journey, as clearly you have a lot more to learn (and hey maybe you can win some of your bids with the newfound knowledge ;)
Posted on 5/10/24 at 4:16 pm to man in the stadium
You just named three projects that couldn’t be more different than the point in case. I sincerely hope you just googled that and are in no way associated with coastal restoration because you sound like one of those “trust the science” zealots. The diversion is a religion to you, and anyone who does not fall in the line and praise CPRA is outcast.
I’ve been studying this for over 30 years and have forgotten more than you actually know. You can join the diversion circle jerk all you want but spending over $5B for the limited return is insane.
I’ve been studying this for over 30 years and have forgotten more than you actually know. You can join the diversion circle jerk all you want but spending over $5B for the limited return is insane.
Posted on 5/10/24 at 4:25 pm to Marshhen
quote:
I’ve been studying this for over 30 years and have forgotten more than you actually know.
Same could be said for the engineers and scientists that have designed the diversion project.
Posted on 5/10/24 at 4:29 pm to KamaCausey_LSU
Oyster mafia
Posted on 5/10/24 at 4:54 pm to KamaCausey_LSU
quote:
Same could be said for the engineers and scientists that have designed the diversion project.
Absolutely. They hired some of the best engineers and scientists. I think much of the work is done well; however, it doesn’t change the fact that the price has skyrocketed past the point of making sense.
Posted on 5/10/24 at 5:30 pm to Marshhen
quote:
Barataria landbridge / Lake Hermitage / Spanish Pass
quote:
You just named three projects that couldn’t be more different than the point in case
3 projects that dredged sediment from the MS River and placed it in the same basin that would be benefitted by the diversion project “couldn’t be more different than the point in case”?
You obviously have some knowledge on the situation but nearly everything you’ve posted in this thread has an angle.
If ManInStadium is “religious” to the diversion - then you are also “religious” to dredging, or at least some part of the dredging process.
Posted on 5/10/24 at 5:33 pm to Marshhen
quote:
price has skyrocketed past the point of making sense.
All government/public works projects are struggling with this. Funding/permits arrives years in advance of contract award. In many cases the BCA is out of whack as soon as the contract is advertised- so what should happen? Release all the funds back to the source and start over?
Posted on 5/10/24 at 5:40 pm to tketaco
quote:
Most Louisiana thing ever. Glad i fricking moved.
Amen.
Baldwin (Parish), Alabama for the win.
Posted on 5/10/24 at 5:55 pm to lsufishnhunt
quote:
You obviously have some knowledge on the situation but nearly everything you’ve posted in this thread has an angle. If ManInStadium is “religious” to the diversion - then you are also “religious” to dredging, or at least some part of the dredging process.
I really don’t have an angle other than I personally agree with the current pause and reconsideration of the diversion. I’m not anti-diversion at all, I just question if the benefits outweigh the costs now that the project is over $3B alone.
Posted on 5/10/24 at 6:55 pm to Marshhen
Who cares the state wasted money but no one should be surprised by that.
Posted on 5/10/24 at 9:28 pm to CarRamrod
quote:
it was a made up permit......... you know the cost of that permit..... it was like 2% of the project cost.... So the parish wanted 46 million dollars. just to build in their parish....
In other words they were looking to grease the local political machine and not protect oyster fishermen. They were just a pawn or scapegoat. 46 million is probably Plaquemines Parish’s entire operating budget for the year.
Posted on 5/10/24 at 9:42 pm to Marshhen
quote:
Does the land built by the diversion magically survive hurricanes??
On a long term basis it doesn't matter. What does matter is that you are continuously adding new sediment into the basin. Storms may "wash away" land but it is really just redistributing sediment. A significant portion of our land loss is from compaction of soils without a means to replenish since building the MS River levee system. It's not from physical erosion such as wave action or storm surge.
This post was edited on 5/10/24 at 9:50 pm
Posted on 5/10/24 at 11:39 pm to KamaCausey_LSU
Just let thebfricking river flow where it was naturally meant to flow, and deal with whatever that brings. The experiment of controlling it is proven not to work
Posted on 5/11/24 at 12:14 am to KamaCausey_LSU
quote:
Dove suggested it is possible the contractor could be liable for damages to sub-contractors, not the state. However, he conceded that is not a certainty.
That seems fair, right? The contractors biggest mistake? He contracted with Loser-iana.
Page 9 of 10
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News