- 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 1:56 pm to CarRamrod
Posted on 5/10/24 at 1:56 pm to CarRamrod
quote:all sides did not come to that conclusion. Some were persuaded to “agree.” That’s not surprising, that’s how they work.
What i have said is that 20 years of studies back and forn came to this being the more "effective" way to appease everyone. Define effective how you want to, becuase it would be a long drawn out definition. But all sides came to this conclusion.
0
Posted on 5/10/24 at 1:56 pm to Swagga
quote:landry can just drag this out for another 4 years
I’m a Louisiana Republican who will sign a recall effort if this is stopped.
Posted on 5/10/24 at 1:56 pm to Junky
quote:
The key with the diversions is to rebuild land over time, year after year. After the initial major expense of building a structure that mimics the old river flooding, there is minor costs associated with maintenance unlike the yearly costs associated with dredging.
I have heard this same thing regurgitated as well. But it’s simply not as accurate as you make it seem. Because the State assumed that the structure will last forever. It won’t. It will have to be replaced eventually. Actually, the structure requires annual maintenance costs … dredging doesn’t. Dredging will require future lifts in 20, 30, 50 years.
Posted on 5/10/24 at 1:57 pm to CarRamrod
quote:
EVERYTHING you have posted has is based on assumption that mostly can be proven wrong.
Go ahead, bud. Prove me wrong.
Posted on 5/10/24 at 1:57 pm to Marshhen
quote:cash another one.
I know the number exactly…it’s 0.0
Posted on 5/10/24 at 1:59 pm to CarRamrod
quote:
cash another one.
Que?
Posted on 5/10/24 at 2:00 pm to Marshhen
quote:
Go ahead, bud. Prove me wrong.
The first one, is dredging is a measure of volume not area.
Posted on 5/10/24 at 2:02 pm to BugAC
quote:
The first one, is dredging is a measure of volume not area.
Dredging is not a measure of anything bro. It’s an act of moving material from one place to another. Construction contracts use CY for measurements of material. In coastal restoration, the units are typically in $/acre. The $50,000/acre is utilized in the CPRA master plan modeling every year.
You don’t know what you’re talking about.
Posted on 5/10/24 at 2:02 pm to Marshhen
quote:
Dredging will require future lifts in 20, 30, 50 years.
Or, after 1 big hurricane.
Posted on 5/10/24 at 2:03 pm to BugAC
quote:
Or, after 1 big hurricane.
Does the land built by the diversion magically survive hurricanes??
Posted on 5/10/24 at 2:07 pm to Marshhen
quote:
Dredging is not a measure of anything bro. It
Dredging is measured by the cubic yard. Your assumption of "$50k/acre" means nothing if depth isn't considered. You add depth to area and you get....VOLUME. So, what depth is your $50k/acre based on? 5, 10, 20 feet? There is a big difference. So blatantly stating "per acre" is a poor measure for dredging and no contractor will quote you based on acreage if depth is not known.
Secondly, hydraulic dredging is more expensive than mechanical dredging but goes quicker, depending on the situation of the contract. The costs per cubic yard for each varies differently. Therefore, stating "$50k/acre" ignores depth of dredge, means of dredging, not to mention the myriad of indirect costs or setup costs depending on your area of construction, means of access, etc... It's not as simple as stating a blanket $/acre = the cost.
Posted on 5/10/24 at 2:11 pm to BugAC
quote:
Dredging is measured by the cubic yard. Your assumption of "$50k/acre" means nothing if depth isn't considered. You add depth to area and you get....VOLUME. So, what depth is your $50k/acre based on? 5, 10, 20 feet? There is a big difference. So blatantly stating "per acre" is a poor measure for dredging and no contractor will quote you based on acreage if depth is not known. Secondly, hydraulic dredging is more expensive than mechanical dredging but goes quicker, depending on the situation of the contract. The costs per cubic yard for each varies differently. Therefore, stating "$50k/acre" ignores depth of dredge, means of dredging, not to mention the myriad of indirect costs or setup costs depending on your area of construction, means of access, etc... It's not as simple as stating a blanket $/acre = the cost.
Again, you do not know what you’re talking about. If you read my response to your idiotic question, contractors bid by the cubic yard. Planning models utilize price per acre. If you knew what you were talking about, you would also know that the entire area of the diversion outfall is roughly 2 to 3 feet deep. There are no areas that will be restored that are 10-20 feet deep. Also, the type of dredging can only be done using hydraulic dredges. Mechanical dredges need to be disposed of in either open water or barges. To get the sediment, out of the barges, you will need another pump, which makes mechanical dredging for restoration Much more expensive.
This post was edited on 5/10/24 at 2:13 pm
Posted on 5/10/24 at 2:17 pm to Marshhen
quote:
contractors bid by the cubic yard. Planning models utilize price per acre.
Again, acreage means nothing without volume. And depending on the area, and the soundings in that area, that volume will differ. That is the EXACT REASON why contractor bid it by volume. Which is why using $/acre in planning is not an accurate measure if you are not accounting for the volume. What volume is your $50k/acre based off of? Where are you pulling these numbers from? Is $50k based on 3 feet? If so, that is a VOLUMETRIC calculation. Which is my entire point. However, if you are taking statewide averages of actual projects, then a) it's likely bid by the cubic yard and b) if its bid by the acre, then the project SHOULD specifically state the assumed depth of dredge which would then give you your volumetric measure.
In addition, if you dredge out these areas only 2-3 feet, that will have to be redone much more regularly than every 20 years. 1 storm surge could wipe that out, depending on the severity of the storm.
This post was edited on 5/10/24 at 2:19 pm
Posted on 5/10/24 at 2:26 pm to BugAC
quote:
Again, acreage means nothing without volume. And depending on the area, and the soundings in that area, that volume will differ. That is the EXACT REASON why contractor bid it by volume. Which is why using $/acre in planning is not an accurate measure if you are not accounting for the volume. What volume is your $50k/acre based off of? Where are you pulling these numbers from? Is $50k based on 3 feet? If so, that is a VOLUMETRIC calculation. Which is my entire point. However, if you are taking statewide averages of actual projects, then a) it's likely bid by the cubic yard and b) if its bid by the acre, then the project SHOULD specifically state the assumed depth of dredge which would then give you your volumetric measure. In addition, if you dredge out these areas only 2-3 feet, that will have to be redone much more regularly than every 20 years. 1 storm surge could wipe that out, depending on the severity of the storm.
You are arguing completely unrelated issues and with little comprehension of the industry. The $50,000/acre figure is industry standard for restoration of land within 5 miles of the river. The figure is also backed up with real bid results for restoration in the region and basin.
Lastly, the dredge depth is not 2-3 feet … that is the depth of the disposal. The final elevation of the marsh is 6-8’ high. It would not require additional dredging before 20- years.
You. Do. Not. Know. What. You. Are. Talking. About
Posted on 5/10/24 at 2:36 pm to Marshhen
quote:
Tell me you don’t understand what you’re talking about without telling me you don’t know what you're talking about.
All of your myriad of factors will generally come back to around $50,000/acre of land for coastal restoration
Tell me you are an armchair quarterback here without telling me...
quote:
The $50,000/acre figure is industry standard for restoration of land within 5 miles of the river.
Check the link below. Lake Hermitage meets your parameters and it was over 115k/acre
Bucket dredge? Cutterhead? Inland? Offshore? River? How long are we transporting? Plus, have you looked at a bid tab or engineer's estimate for dredging lately? High as giraffe's ______. It is a gross generalization. From their own numbers, it is a lot higher
This post was edited on 5/10/24 at 2:45 pm
Posted on 5/10/24 at 2:37 pm to Marshhen
quote:
The $50,000/acre figure is industry standard for restoration of land within 5 miles of the river.
How many acres are you dredging?
What is the existing mudline elevation?
What is the proposed bottom of dredge elevation?
Where is the dredge disposal area?
What is the existing elevation of the dredge disposal area?
What is the proposed elevation of the dredge disposal area?
You may use a general $/acre but that is not an accurate measure of dredging. You can disagree with me all you want, but the questions above all boil down to volume. A dredger is going to quote you based on the volume of the dredge. The state may track it by acre but that doesn't accurately tell you how much you are dredging. Volume matters. I'm not arguing this anymore, have yourself a good weekend.
Posted on 5/10/24 at 2:41 pm to man in the stadium
quote:
Plus, have you looked at a bid tab or engineer's estimate for dredging lately?
Well, I have developed 10 formal bids for dredging projects in the past 6 months. Yes, they are high but it still doesn’t change the fact that it takes anywhere from 5,000-6,000 cubic yards to restore an average acre of marsh.
Posted on 5/10/24 at 2:45 pm to BugAC
quote:
You may use a general $/acre but that is not an accurate measure of dredging. You can disagree with me all you want, but the questions above all boil down to volume. A dredger is going to quote you based on the volume of the dredge. The state may track it by acre but that doesn't accurately tell you how much you are dredging. Volume matters. I'm not arguing this anymore, have yourself a good weekend.
I’m not arguing anything…I’m stating facts that you can’t comprehend. You keep asking for specifics and accuracy, but that is NOT important for macro scale planning. Some acres may be $90k some $40k to restore …. Over the large scale of a basin wide plan it all equates to approximately $50,000/acre within 5 miles of the river.
Posted on 5/10/24 at 2:45 pm to Marshhen
Y'all two need to frick and get over it.
Posted on 5/10/24 at 2:51 pm to Trout Bandit
Haha!
Page 8 of 10
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News