The Great Barrier Reef- resistant coral

[Exile]

Originally Posted by boatman61

I'm coming back as a male turtle..

I was waitin' for that one.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

Make sure your egg is laid in more southern latitudes or you may end up transgender.

Now I'm confused again, damnit!

[StuM]

Originally Posted by Exile

Meanwhile, the political gamesmanship has shrouded a more basic question, namely why the Port Authority is unable to require the spoils to be dumped in deeper waters beyond the reef. I'm sure it comes down to cost, perhaps in this case the potentially prohibitive transport costs given the vast expanse of the reefs.

Maybe it's because it's over 100NM to get "beyond the reef" (i.e. outside of the GBR marine park) and there is 30+ NM width swathe of 50+ metre depths between the inner and outer reefs.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by StuM

Maybe it's because it's over 100NM to get "beyond the reef" (i.e. outside of the GBR marine park) and there is 30+ NM width swathe of 50+ metre depths between the inner and outer reefs.

Thanks Stu. I figured as much but am not familiar with the area. I'm assuming we're dealing with a huge amount of material to transport. If there are better alternatives to what has already been approved, I'm also unaware of them. I suspect if such alternatives were realistically available they would have already been noted.

[SailOar]

Originally Posted by Exile

I found none of it offensive, only misleading. Which it was. Apparently they're not dredging in the waters proximate to the actual coal depot. Wouldn't surprise me if that area had been contaminated with coal deposits over the years, and the article mentioned heavy metal deposits in some areas which also makes sense. But it doesn't sound like this is part of the naturally occurring dredge spoils at issue in this case, although I agree with L-E that they are not likely to be completely benign.....

Hay Point permit for maintenance dredging

....“Sediment has naturally accumulated in the Port of Hay Point since maintenance dredging last occurred in 2010, including from cyclone Debbie. Most of the area requiring dredging is in the Port Exclusion Area. Only the departure channel is within the Marine Park.*....

Originally Posted by Exile

....Meanwhile, the political gamesmanship has shrouded a more basic question, namely why the Port Authority is unable to require the spoils to be dumped in deeper waters beyond the reef. I'm sure it comes down to cost, perhaps in this case the potentially prohibitive transport costs given the vast expanse of the reefs. Dunno, but maybe it's more akin to the monetary & environmental costs of transporting dredge spoils overland to fill an open mining pit....

Dredging and dredge material disposal

Types of dredging

Capital dredging is undertaken to create new channels or enlarge existing ones, as well as berth areas, swing basins, marinas and boat harbour areas.

Maintenance dredging is undertaken to maintain existing port and marina facilities.

Depending on the location along the Great Barrier Reef, dredging and the disposal of dredge material at sea can occur inside or outside the Marine Park boundary.

The Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority’s (GBRMPA) preference is for land-based disposal of dredge material.....

See also:
Dredging and dredge spoil material disposal policy


Maybe this is the photo we've all been looking for?

A coal ship with protest slogans painted on at Hay Point Port.
Source: AAP

[Puddleduck]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

Make sure your egg is laid in more southern latitudes or you may end up transgender.

That kind of thing wouldn’t happen in the ‘wild’ would it? As you’ve already quoted Disney....

How Finding Nemo should have started if it were biologically accurate:

Father and mother clownfish are tending to their clutch of eggs at their sea anemone when the mother is eaten by a barracuda. Nemo hatches as an undifferentiated hermaphrodite (as all clownfish are born) while his father transforms into a female clownfish now that his female mate is dead. Since Nemo is the only other clownfish around, he becomes male and mates with his father (who is now female). Should his father die, Nemo would change into a female clownfish and mate with another male.

[downunder]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

Yes we should definitely intervene. Because after 220 million years on the planet, turtles are obviously teetering on the precipice of extinction thanks to female to male ratios possibly exceeded only by the human intervention related chicken and dairy cow.

In some areas the protection is working.

In 2017 i spent 2 months snorkelling the Bundaberg Capricorn Bunker reefs (southern GBR) looking at areas i dived extensively in the 1980's.

The turtle population was fantastic if anything increased. Just one example at 1100 hrs one day on Wilson Island there were still 8 turtles making their way to the water after laying. Corals were similar but fish populations much smaller due to modern fishing techniques. Protected areas such as Heron Island fish life is still fantastic. Turtles everywhere on all the reefs.

A pro fisherman mate also confirmed the turtle population along the coast was greater now than in the 1980's. Clearly for turtles the research by Dr Col Limpus at Mon Repos and protection near Bundaberg is working.

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by downunder

In some areas the protection is working.

In 2017 i spent 2 months snorkelling the Bundaberg Capricorn Bunker reefs (southern GBR) looking at areas i dived extensively in the 1980's.

The turtle population was fantastic if anything increased. Just one example at 1100 hrs one day on Wilson Island there were still 8 turtles making their way to the water after laying. Corals were similar but fish populations much smaller due to modern fishing techniques. Protected areas such as Heron Island fish life is still fantastic. Turtles everywhere on all the reefs.

A pro fisherman mate also confirmed the turtle population along the coast was greater now than in the 1980's. Clearly for turtles the research by Dr Col Limpus at Mon Repos and protection near Bundaberg is working.

Turtles are common right along the coast. It's unusual to be at anchor without seeing at least one poke his (or most likely, her, if other reports are to be believed) head out of the water to have a bo-peep. I was watching something on the telly recently about turtle conservation and the ratio of turtles reaching adulthood and returning to their birth beach to breed is something like 1000 to 1. Quite low odds!

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by Puddleduck

That kind of thing wouldn’t happen in the ‘wild’ would it? As you’ve already quoted Disney....

A lot of fish do that, including those commercially fished. Maximum size limits are set for some species not because they're likely to contain a build up of toxins but because once they reach a certain size they will all be breeding females. An example for us downunder is the Barramundi.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by SailOar

Hay Point permit for maintenance dredging





Dredging and dredge material disposal


See also:
Dredging and dredge spoil material disposal policy


Maybe this is the photo we've all been looking for?

A coal ship with protest slogans painted on at Hay Point Port.
Source: AAP

Sure, if you're a publication trying to compete for the same sort of gullible readers as The Guardian.

I get the difference between maintenance & capital dredging, but am only seeing a permit for maintenance dredging here. I get that the permit allows dumping within the marine park boundaries, but we've already seen a reference to it comprising only 0.1% of the entire park. I get what a Port Exclusion Area is, and that it could likely encompass the area where coal transport ships load & unload. And I obviously get why there would be a preference for land-based disposal, but can also understand why this wouldn't be feasible in this case. The photo shows that Greenpeace is quite obviously concerned, but despite the drama of painting graffiti on a transport ship, the link below to the SBS News site quoted this:

"The applicant’s peer-reviewed sediment assessment investigated whether maintenance dredging could be avoided, reduced or beneficially reused. Due to the nature of the material, it found there to be limited beneficial reuse options.

Maintenance dredging refers to relocating sediment that naturally accumulates in shipping channels, to ensure vessels can access ports and marinas.

In 2015, the federal government banned the disposal of dredging sludge near the reef, but this only applied to capital dredging which involves excavating previously undisturbed areas of seabed."

https://www.sbs.com.au/news/dumping-...given-go-ahead (emphasis mine)

So did I miss the punch line or something?? Where is the evidence that COAL will be dumped inside the marine park along with all the naturally occurring sediment from maintenance dredging only? If the evidence is not there, then SBS News suffers from the same lack of credibility as the article from The Guardian, namely a photograph suggesting the dumping of coal, combined with the use of the term "sludge," when in fact nothing other than natural sediment is being dumped.

Rather than allowing yourself to get repeatedly seduced by these alarmist articles, maybe you should spend your time researching more specifically what the actual environmentally-based reasons are for opposing the dumping in this particular case. If I was as concerned as you profess to be, I might start with Senator Water's office, and stop relying on agenda-driven media whose primary motivation is gaining more naive & gullible subscribers.

[SailOar]

Originally Posted by Exile

....So did I miss the punch line or something?? Where is the evidence that COAL will be dumped inside the marine park along with all the naturally occurring sediment from maintenance dredging only?...

What you missed was the winky face that I was remiss to put with the photo. The photo was just meant to tease you. The other references were for informational purposes only. Sorry for my lack of clarity.

AFAIK, there is no coal mixed in with the naturally occurring marine sludge. Nor have any of the articles that I've read said that there was. I suspect that Greenpeace's opposition to coal is much broader than a dredging operation.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by SailOar

What you missed was the winky face that I was remiss to put with the photo. The photo was just meant to tease you. The other references were for informational purposes only. Sorry for my lack of clarity.

AFAIK, there is no coal mixed in with the naturally occurring marine sludge. Nor have any of the articles that I've read said that there was. I suspect that Greenpeace's opposition to coal is much broader than a dredging operation.

I suspected this as well. Makes more sense now.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by SailOar

AFAIK, there is no coal mixed in with the naturally occurring marine sludge. Nor have any of the articles that I've read said that there was. I suspect that Greenpeace's opposition to coal is much broader than a dredging operation.

If you dredge adjacent to a coal-loading dock you will pick up some
a) coal
b) gumdrops


Anyway that's not the main point; it's that sediment shouldn't deliberately be dropped at/near reefs. Sediment drifts, no?

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

If you dredge adjacent to a coal-loading dock you will pick up some
a) coal
b) gumdrops


Anyway that's not the main point; it's that sediment shouldn't deliberately be dropped at/near reefs. Sediment drifts, no?

The Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority (GBRMPA) begs to differ.

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

If you dredge adjacent to a coal-loading dock you will pick up some
a) coal
b) gumdrops


Anyway that's not the main point; it's that sediment shouldn't deliberately be dropped at/near reefs. Sediment drifts, no?

You'd have more chance picking up gumdrops. Ship loading technology has improved since the shoveling days of the 1800's.


Even the greenies mostly only complain about the runoff from shore based stockpiles.