17-06-2006, 10:35 AM
Has anyone cosidered the effects that this is going to have on us boaties and fishoes if it goes ahead .The channel will be dredged to 12 meters deep and extended out.A swing basin will be made to the east of wavebreak and dreedged to 10 meters then ongoing maintenance to keep channel clear. Constraints on entering or exerting seaway when ships are berthing or leaving could be two hours or longer. #Why do we need one when there building one at brisbane its only an hours drive. What is the fishing going to be like in seaway after all this is done and what damage is it going to do during and after completion. Would like to here some opinions on this maybe someone can put my mind at rest instead of thinking another monumental stuffup from people who can only see dollar signs in front of there eyes

17-06-2006, 07:42 PM
i dont like it all! >:(

17-06-2006, 09:44 PM
The effects on the evironment of the broadwater and offshore reefs will be devastating, thru initial and ongoing dredging the suspended silt particles will kill/remove the food sources for the marine nursury, the whole dynamics of the waterways will be changed.

Seaway closures to all commercial and domestic traffic will effect everyone not just those who like to go fishing, the dangers of these implications are a serious safety issue.

Pollution, oils, fuels,bilge and sewerage waste, parasitic pests and diseases are a great concern.
The seaway and broadwater is a very narrow and small waterway and will not cope with the huge increased pressure of a cruise ship terminal and associated large support vessels, within 2 hours on a run in tide a small pollution spill would overwhelm the broadwater and surrounding mangroves and rivers, there would be no time to save it.

Nuclear warships and defence vessels will also use this facillity which will mean significant area closures and no go areas not to mention the thought of a serious mishap or terrorist threat.

45 minutes up the road there is already an international cruise ship terminal in Brisbane, these passengers already have the opportunity to visit our coast, it is crazy to have 2 terminals so close.

A dark and stormy cloud looms over our broadwater, the successful future existence of its marine environment is at stake.

The Save our Spit alliance has been fighting this issue for some time now but it needs your support, and the government to listen to its people.

cheers andy

18-06-2006, 11:58 AM
IMHO sanity will rule in the end, and it will never be built.

18-06-2006, 01:41 PM

18-06-2006, 01:48 PM
Were does sanity come into it if theres big money involved!
IMHO sanity will rule in the end, and it will never be built.

18-06-2006, 03:23 PM
>:( Yeah didnt like the idea have look sunday mail paper there is about the thinking of remove pipeline throu seaway. :( wavebreak my favourite will it be ruin ??

18-06-2006, 05:39 PM
Found this very interesting.

Sailing into murky waters
The following is a cracker of an article written by Mike O'Connor in the Courier Mail April 24 2006.

THE chardonnay was flowing at an inner-city function a few weeks back when the conversation turned to the proposed development of a cruise ship terminal at the Southport Spit.

I was speaking to someone with a corporate interest in The Spit, his company spending tens of millions of dollars on its business so that it could capitalise on the passenger traffic the cruise terminal would bring when built.

He painted a tantalising image of the profits that'd flow once cruise ships began disgorging thousands of cashed up tourists on to the Gold Coast.

It was obvious, to hear him speak, that the project would be a river of gold for the developers.
I pointed out, rather naively as it transpired, State Cabinet hadn't made any decision to authorise the construction of the terminal and, in any case, the environmental impact study commissioned by the Beattie Government had not yet been completed.

Was not this investment of untold millions and talk of the money that would pour into corporate pockets as a result a tad premature, I asked.

What if the EIS found the ecology of The Spit would be damaged by a cruise ship terminal, I asked, adding that it was difficult to see how such damage could not occur given the construction and dredging that would take place.

The developer looked at me patronisingiy and winked. "Don't you worry, it's going to be built," he said and walked away.

What he was saying was he knew the score before the game was played. The fix was in. Peter Beattie and his dutiful deputy Anna Bligh already had decided developers would have their way and be a allowed to bulldoze one of the last natural stretches of beachfront land - yours and mine - on the Gold Coast.

A deal, it seems, has been done and in the finest traditions of Queensland politics, it's been done in secret.

The people presently conducting the EIS commissioned and paid by the State Government are wasting their time and your money. It's a sham - the decision has been reached already.

The public, as usual, will be treated like morons, the presumption being that they are so stupid they will happily swallow whatever government PR swill is served up.

In a few months, Beattie will hold a press conference to announce the EIS results have been delivered and that after much debate and fulsome intellectual exchange among ministers, it's been decided that what this great state of ours needs is a huge cruise ship terminal slamdunked on to The Spit

All involved will don serious expressions to convince us the decision has been made in the best interests of Queensland and that the whole business has been conducted with the transparency that democracy demands.

Secret deals? Heavens, no.

The reality is that all those protesting locals may as well roll up their banners and put away their placards because it is plain there was never any intention to listen to a dissenting viewpoint, no matter how forceful and convincing a case was presented.

Anyone who decries the decision to build the terminal will be accused of trying to destroy the tourism industry.

The Bjelke-Petersen government committed grievous sins in the name of development, and when it ran into public opposition it went ahead and did what it wanted anyway. It did it in the dead of night if the politics of the situation demanded, such as the demolition of the historic BelleVue Hotel.

It's the arrogance that irritates. I predicted in this column a few weeks back that when Beattie said Suncorp Stadium could perhaps be used to stage rock concerts, in spite of his assurances when it was built this would never happen, what he meant was the exact opposite and it has come to pass.

When the Opposition attacked this breach of faith, the Premier said it wanted to drag Brisbane back to the '50s! One can only hope that one of the Premier's bagholders Wrote this line for him and it was not one of his own creation.

The point, which he deliberately ignored, was that the Government had broken its word and had given assurances to voters which, I am certain, it never had any intention of honouring.

A similar scenario is being played out on the Gold Coast now as the Government pretends to await the results of its own environmental impact study. The study could find The Spit to be the secret breeding ground of a thousand orange-bellied parrots and they'd still dismiss it and give the thumbs up to the developers. It's the way business is done in this state.

Mike O'Connor

19-06-2006, 01:53 AM
Interesting article by Mike O'Connor...they still going on about the Bellevue...LOL

19-06-2006, 02:34 PM
What i find amazing and not sure if anyone else has thought of it is the obvious safety factor.Closed for 2 hours while ships berthing or leaving,well what happens if the weather turns nasty outside and your swamped for example,because you can't enter the seaway and get back to safety?

21-06-2006, 07:09 AM
I used to live at Main Beach before the seaway was built. I recall the vocal environmental opposition to the building of the seaway then, but it did little.
The powers that wanted the seaway for tourist purposes are still there on the Gold Coast today.
A terminal would undoubtedly drastically alter the landscape and greatly inconvienience boaties. But I doubt these are concerns for the gov't as they would argue that the seaway is man made anyway and only 20 odd years old.
There is a good chance the EIS will come up aces, but I don't think the EIS will sway them either way. The gov't and developers will be looking at returns on investment. Basically if it is going to make money, they'll build it. The pollution worries would be the least concern, there is a thousand times more crap running into the broadwater than would ever come from a ship. The MARPOL regulations and prosecution in the event of a spill enforce very strict controls on overboard discharges. Cruise ships enter environmentally sensitive areas world wide, and have a good track record. The biggest concern will be the construction and building of the terminal, that's when the damage will occur I think.
Then there is the security issues, how will they keep terrorists out. A single terminal close to a heavily populated area is crying out to be blown up or held hostage.

I doubt whether a cruise terminal would be viable long term, Australia is hardly the cruise hotspot of the world. They'll be limited on the size of ship and lately cruise companies have been building bigger ships not smaller ones. It could be the 20yr old liners that come to Aus, as they do now.
Let's hope they learn something from the Tassy gov't Spirit III debacle.

22-06-2006, 10:03 PM
As good as the idea is I agree with marlinqld.

If you look at the save our spit web site and other plans that are availiable it doesnt really fit in... However that doesnt mean they wont put it somewhere else.........

When i say good I mean it would be fantastic for tourism but it will have just too much of an impact...

30-06-2006, 08:51 PM
is this what we want in our seaway?

The value of the ports around Australia is substantial. Substitution of many of the services offered by shipping transport is not available so that these facilities can be regarded as being asset specific and as such provide a service to the Australian economy that is far beyond the value of infrastructure and annual revenue.

However, while substantial economic gains can be made from the presence of ports in estuarine areas, the ports themselves are potentially a source of environmental and economic hazard. One of the most obvious hazards in a port is the risk of shipping accidents The probability of these accidents occurring in ports is enhanced due to the high volume of shipping traffic and the potentially dramatic variations in water depths. In the event of an accident, toxic materials could be released into the waterway. These toxins could originate from the ship's cargo, the ship's fuel or indeed the ship's paint. Other hazards that might surround the operation of a port include the release and introduction of marine pest invaders from incoming vessels and/or the creation of water turbidity and release of toxins from the sediments due to dredging. Dredging is often required to allow large ships into port. All of these hazards have the potential to result in large economic costs ranging from clean up bills, to lost production of the marine environment to lost aesthetic appeal of the affected areas. For more information on the risk of marine pest invasions associated with ports in Australia http://www.marine.csiro.au/crimp/Introduction_mechanisms.html
To conclude, it is apparent that estuarine environments can provide the basis from which extensive and economically important human capital can be created, in the form of ports. However, these positive gains can be counteracted by the marine hazards potentially introduced as a result of port activities. These potential hazards cannot be totally eliminated from the operation of the ports but it is important to invest in programs to minimise and manage these risks as much as possible given that the potential costs to arise from accidents have the potential to be enormous. More information on the potential economic consequences to arise from port activities can be found under the economic consequences of marine pest invasions.

01-07-2006, 04:32 PM
OMg reading all this , i began to feel like to hug a tree of some sort .What you guys saying is ALL politicians are liars and all fisghermans are honest human beings.HMMMMM a bit uniform isnt it? Why do you reckon they do this things just to piss a few anglers off? As gelsec pointed out the seaway as it is been opposed before being developed to current form .20 years from now it would be just as normal with the cruiseships as it is normal without them now .

03-07-2006, 11:38 PM

Have you ever fished the seaway drifted over the pipe line with a livey. Sat off the deep hole off the north wall chasing jew or green backs or jacks . Quote IT would be just as normal as with the cruiseships as it is normal now. Gone will be the pipe line no more jew there! gone will be the deep hole! Gone will be the other sea life that calls this home! Dredged to 12 meters deep and on going maintence dredging of channels creates highly turbid sediment plumes that can kill corals up to hundreds of metres away. Most ports along the Queensland coast require periodic dredging after initial construction. Maintenance dredging at ports with nearby coral reefs is a potentially significant impact for these corals YEA IM PISSED AND SHOW ME AN HONEST POLITICIAN!

05-07-2006, 07:16 PM
Yes mate i did .But if i didnt would that make me a bad person?Anywho everybody wants the economy to grow but not in the way that effects them.I can understand that but,if you like the benefits of it you must put up with some inconvinence one time or another.other than that you can chain yourself to a tree and die protecting it.Ok i didnt meant that.

11-07-2006, 09:48 AM
Rally Alert - Major SOS Event - 20 August 2006 @ 11 AM on The Spit

WHY? "...'cos it happens to be, an emergency... some things don't come for
free..." [Midnight Oil]

All SOS supporters, friends, clubs and families are needed to attend a major
event at The Spit... a very very Big Rally... the biggest yet. The Spit needs
YOU now. Start making banners, posters, placards, costumes or just put the date
in your diary & be there... show the Beattie/ Bligh government you care... a

"What I do now can save The Spit for me, for our kids, for everyone".

15-07-2006, 05:49 PM
It is not going to matter what the EIS says, the government is going to spin it anyway they want. The terms of reference will make sure of that. NO study is ever open ended. How is SEQ suppose to support all this extra tourism when it comes to water. We are already in the grips of a major water shortage, how are we suppose to handle the extra pressure on our limited water supplies. This is just one concern, the impact of dredging and security has already been mentioned so I will not add to those that have already made very good points. The beattie government is no different from joh and his mob was in the past, they all seem to be only concerned about their politicial immortality. This government is handling the spit and the question of the new dams in the same manner as it does with everything else, including qld health. If you disagree too damn bad, we will do what we want anyway. That is my 2 cents worth, I dont know what it is worth to anyone else.


15-07-2006, 07:55 PM
Another hot enviromental post! I just cant resist.
Marine building can be done, and must be done right!
On one hand, jobs for young are of a importance, and on the other
hand, man has to be careful when dealing with this planet, because its all
we have got.
Goverments are under the impression, that mother nature will bounce
back, and fix whatever we serew up. It must be low impacted, and
this will bring fast healing brought on by the up set of building in or near
the sea.
Point is! no shortcuts.do the job right and all will be happy.

signed tunaman

23-07-2006, 02:58 PM
Yes the seaway is man made somthing had to be done due to the instability of the strong notherly drift along the shoreline the river mouth moving sometimes as munch 60 metres in a year the ever changing and unpredictable sand banks tragic boating accidents they did a good job even building wave break as a buffer to big swells that may enter the seaway and i think its more than just a few fishing spots in the seaway seems to me that quite a few have forgotten why the sand bypass system was built . Each year some 500,ooo cubic meters of sand move northward past any given point on australia,s east coast . And we are going to extend these walls to trap more sand it has to go somewhere maybe into the new dredged channell hence ongoing dredging but what of the effects to the coast line past this point more erosion? Spend more money on a bigger sand bypass system? Will this solve it . Did a lot of research into this the effects of dredging. what kind of dredge looked at other dredging projects in moreton bay.the loss of sea grass in botany bay due to dredging of shipping channel at bays entrance . these are our nurseries for future .sediment instability the list goes on .Conclusion anythings possible with this goverment .IT SHOULD NOT BE BUILT. AND AS I SAID IN THE OTHER THREAD SEAWAY CONCERNS. FOR THE SAKE OF PROGRESS BUT AT WHAT COST?