Comments on: Colin’s canal, again

By: Giles

Giles — Fri, 11 Feb 2005 15:27:23 +0000

Yes but its hard to see that the canal is going to be 2 times as long as a pipeline – especially since there is a greater incentive to have straight canals since you get erosions and all sorts of other problems. I mean get an Encarta out and try to trace out a route that’s 3800km it leads to absurd routing. I think you should be wary about a common negotiating technique where the propose makes a mistake, the oppose and propose argue over unit costs – and meet in the middle, at which point the propose then says there was a mistake and he only needs half as many units. And given that this canal doesn’t look like an entirely cards on the table proposal, I wouldn’t discount the possibility.

By: Giles

Giles — Fri, 11 Feb 2005 15:25:57 +0000

Yes but its hard to see that the canal is going to be 2 times as long as a pipleline – especially since there is a greater incentive to have straight canals since you get errosions and all sorts of other problems. I mean get an encarta out and try to trace out a route thats 3800km it leads to aburd routing. I think you should be warry about a common negotiating technique where the proposer makes a mistake, the opposer and proposer argue over unit costs – and meet in the middle, at which point the proposer then says there was a mistake and he only needs half as many units. And given that this canal doesn’t look like an entirely cards on the table proposal, I wouldnt discount the possibility.

By: John Quiggin

John Quiggin — Fri, 11 Feb 2005 07:01:13 +0000

Giles, the pipeline and canal are different versions of the project. The pipeline was costed at $11bn and the canal proponents claim $2 bn. I assume the routes also differ.

By: grumpymatt

grumpymatt — Fri, 11 Feb 2005 05:09:31 +0000

Of course, there’s the more derisory explanation for the spelling of Labor: Labor—the party that forgot u.

By: Giles

Giles — Fri, 11 Feb 2005 02:59:52 +0000

The figure from the water corporation is “1800 km” pg 2 “The most favored option was found to comprise three, long distance (around 1800 km), large diameter (1400 mm) pipelines, seven high-capacity, gas powered pumping stations and a very large dam on the Fitzroy river at Dimond Gorge with a downstream barrage constructed to provide a suitable water supply off take point.” 3700km is more than the distance by road so unless the wiggles are somehow need to push the water, I think this is a transcription error thats just been repeated by newspapers quoting each other. http://www.watercorporation.com.au/publications/12/Kimberley_Pipeline_Project_Review.pdf

By: jet

jet — Thu, 10 Feb 2005 21:14:33 +0000

$10 per kiloliter is crazy. Nuclear desalination can provide water for less than $1 per cubic meter. And it is proven techonology, not a pipe dream.

By: Steve LaBonne

Steve LaBonne — Thu, 10 Feb 2005 18:48:52 +0000

Very interesting, glad I asked. Thanks!

By: Andrew McManama-Smith

Andrew McManama-Smith — Thu, 10 Feb 2005 18:32:33 +0000

Steve, from the ALP website: ‘During the early years of the ALP, the Party was referred to by various titles differing from colony to colony. It was at the 1908 Interstate (federal) Conference that the name “Australian Labour Party” was adopted. In its shortened form the Party was frequently referred to as both ‘Labor’ and ‘Labour’, however the former spelling was adopted from 1912 onwards, due to the influence of the American labor movement.’

By: Steve LaBonne

Steve LaBonne — Thu, 10 Feb 2005 17:52:23 +0000

Off topic, but as long as the post is here: can someone please explain to me why the party is “Labor” when AFAIK Australians spell the word “labour” in every other context?

By: dsquared

dsquared — Thu, 10 Feb 2005 12:18:01 +0000

Campaigning on the slogan “decisions not delays” Oh god no … “Measure once, cut twice” on the grand scale.

By: Mill

Mill — Thu, 10 Feb 2005 08:06:11 +0000

But John! Battlers chattering classes chardonnay socialists battlers battlers! Struggle street our way of life battlers? Battlers! Their own children! Battlers battlers! And why SHOULD he say sorry?! There, now we’re back at the usual level of Australian political discourse.

By: John Quiggin

John Quiggin — Thu, 10 Feb 2005 05:39:41 +0000

Quite a few sources give it as 3700km, Giles. here for example. The feasible routes aren’t straight lines (or great circles).

By: Giles

Giles — Thu, 10 Feb 2005 03:05:07 +0000

“3700km” That is more than the distance from Sydney to Perth so your figure can’t be right – the correct distance is I think 1700-2300km (not that it makes any difference to the economics!)

By: Andrew McManama-Smith

Andrew McManama-Smith — Thu, 10 Feb 2005 01:55:57 +0000

Did Tenix already get $5mm from the government for that feasiblity “study”?