Falkland Island lawmaker, MLA Roger Edwards, portfolio holder for Public Works spoke about the ongoing project for the new port to replace FIPASS, (Falklands Interim Port and Storage System) and the resources it will require, among which some 900,000 tons of stone.
The status of the project was questioned in a public meeting on January 25, where MLA Barry Elsby reassured the public that BAM Nuttall – the company responsible for the construction of the port, “took on board all of the suggestions,” during stakeholder consultation, and “within the contract, as always, there are key points for making decisions, and penalty clauses. So if they or us cause delays there will be financial penalties for one or the other. So everybody is keen on making sure that the project goes on time with the key stages and decisions made and followed.”
During comments at the public meeting MLA Edwards stated that 900,000 tons of stone would be needed for the port construction. Asked about the pressure this would place on the quarry (the quarry has been quoted as usually producing between 60-120,000 tons of stone per annum) MLA Edwards said, “the supply of stone” has been “looked at” and that BAM Nuttall “will be bringing people down to assist the quarry if they are going to take the stone from the quarry.”
MLA Edwards interviewed by Penguin News said it wasn’t certain yet but, “They may be taking the stone from somewhere else closer to [the site]” in a location as of yet undefined, but noted that it could be, “like the military when they were looking for stone in ’82, opening up Mary Hill or somewhere like that.”
The value of this, MLA Edwards said, would be in avoiding transporting what would be 30,000 ten-ton lorries each carrying 30 tons of stone on Stanley roads. Asked whether other resources taken from the Islands, such as water, could be equally significant, MLA Edwards said that it “shouldn’t be unless we have a drought situations.
Commenting for this story is now closed.
If you have a Facebook account, become a fan and comment on our Facebook Page!
So maybe cheaper to build it East of the Camber on other side of harbour- all the rock is right there 100or so mtrs away and removal would produce the flat container park area and access to potential Port William deepwater port in long term if ever needed. Come on FIG at least look at options and do the sums to see which really is better location in Stanley Harbour.Jan 30th, 2021 - 11:42 am +1
To what extent were outside port consulting and civil engineering companies invited to look at all the options? Surely a good study would examine all options and produce a feasibility study to cost out all the options including the cost and efficiency of supplying materials (inclusive of moving the stone by water instead of by road)?Jan 30th, 2021 - 12:15 pm 0
Maybe these things have been studied already but why is the 900,000 tonnes issue now surfacing as a massive hurdle - 10 years worth of production (assuming they can get all the explosives and transport needed)?This should have been raised and addressed in the final construction report prior to appointing the contractors.
Gracias Senor Think- Thankyou- there are times we can agree on somethings!Jan 30th, 2021 - 02:35 pm 0