Sensational-Adelaide.com

Aidan wrote:

rhino wrote:

Aidan wrote: And rhino, if the cost is falling then it should be put off until it is needed.

If I remember correctly, one of the big complaints at the time was "We need a desalination plant! Why didn't this government have the foresight to build it before it was needed?"

Now we have you, with your enormous ammount of knowledge on every subject, some of which you admit is gained from reading the Murdoch Press, telling us that the government was wrong to have built it because the drought broke and they should have waited until it was needed. It beggars belief.

Rhino, that's not what I'm saying at all. I never claimed the desalination plant wasn't needed. The drought made it clear that it was needed.

What was not needed was to build it at 100 gigalitre/year capacity straight away, as opposed to the original plan of 50Gl/y capacity with provision to double it.

Why is that so hard to understand?

Federal funding.

Pretty sure the Feds said it was now or never - make it 100gL and we'll throw in some cash to help you do that. Or leave it as it, and pay for the cost of the upgrade later by yourselves. The former is what they chose, and what we got.

Sure, we're dealing with the consequences now through higher water bills, but to be honest, it would have been silly to turn them down. If anything, It actually probably saved us another $1b (accounting for future inflation & construction costs).

And by the way the thread title can be changed now - found out the cost and it's completed now, as the first desal water came through on the weekend.

COM: Adelaide Desalination Plant | 100gL | $1.83b

Source;
http://www.waterforgood.sa.gov.au/desal ... ion-plant/

"The indicative cost for a 100 billion litre seawater desalination plant in Adelaide is about $1.83 billion."

rhino wrote:Jim! Howya Doin' Buddy? Wow $13billion for that hospital now? Who woulda thunk? Imagine the freeway we could have! We could probably have a cloud seeder too, to drought-proof us, for that kinda money!

Hey! Do you wanna be Premier?

You must be a public servant, hey you should use a photo of Mickey as your Avatar, as I've never seen someone blindly support him as you do.


http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nationa ... 6050087724 - Read this article it might open you eyes a bit!!!

Jim Boukas wrote:

rhino wrote:Jim! Howya Doin' Buddy? Wow $13billion for that hospital now? Who woulda thunk? Imagine the freeway we could have! We could probably have a cloud seeder too, to drought-proof us, for that kinda money!

Hey! Do you wanna be Premier?

You must be a public servant, hey you should use a photo of Mickey as your Avatar, as I've never seen someone blindly support him as you do.


http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nationa ... 6050087724 - Read this article it might open you eyes a bit!!!

I just bought a new car! If we use your logic, the price tag should be over $200,000, because apparently we're including fuel and maintenance costs as well.

I was always told that SA is the Driest State on the Driest Continent, we are surrounded by water so why not just drink that, and if it costs us $1b+ to do that, then so be it. So I say good on the Rann govt for building the Desal Plant! Although troubled during its construction it gives us water without having to rely on rain or the Murray River.

and Jim i did laugh quite loudly at your $13 Billion hospital, are you a member of the SA Liberal Party by any chance, you certainly sound like you are in your last post?

Heh heh, good one Jim. You're showing me an article from 5 months ago that had so much truth in it that it made no waves at all in the 5 months since then. Do you realise that if you or I could be bothered, we could leak a 'document' to the Murdoch press and they would write an article about it?

As for blindly supporting Mikey, wrong. I'm kinda glad to see him go, there are many things about him and his leadership style I'm not happy with. However, he has initiated many good things for this state, and finally got it moving ahead. There's far more happening here than there was in the previous decade of Brown/Olsen, and on top of all the infrastructure upgrades and other things, we've got a better credit rating than we had with them too.

Keep on grinning!

And now ... back to our regular programming ... the desal plant ...

Dylan_ wrote:

Jim Boukas wrote:

rhino wrote:Jim! Howya Doin' Buddy? Wow $13billion for that hospital now? Who woulda thunk? Imagine the freeway we could have! We could probably have a cloud seeder too, to drought-proof us, for that kinda money!

Hey! Do you wanna be Premier?

You must be a public servant, hey you should use a photo of Mickey as your Avatar, as I've never seen someone blindly support him as you do.


http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nationa ... 6050087724 - Read this article it might open you eyes a bit!!!

I just bought a new car! If we use your logic, the price tag should be over $200,000, because apparently we're including fuel and maintenance costs as well.

Use logic, $1M a day to run a hospital seems logical does it? Just as logical as running you're car at say $100/day over a 4 year life cycle is? That would make sense you bought a Hyundai and paying Ferrari runing costs hmm, let's not get lost in the numbers bottom line is these two projects are another example of spending way too much money in the wrong areas!!!!

Jim Boukas wrote:


http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nationa ... 6050087724 - Read this article it might open you eyes a bit!!!



Use logic, $1M a day to run a hospital seems logical does it? Just as logical as running you're car at say $100/day over a 4 year life cycle is? That would make sense you bought a Hyundai and paying Ferrari runing costs hmm, let's not get lost in the numbers bottom line is these two projects are another example of spending way too much money in the wrong areas!!!!

A couple of things Jim,

First of all, you quote the Australian. Have you got any independent confirmation of that article? I would probably not trust the Australian any more than I would have trusted the late lamented Pravda. If one quotes either from the likes of the Oz or Pravda, one is likely to get guffaws of hilarious laughter. Or offers of lottery wins from Nigeria. I am not saying that everything from the Oz is likely to be bolloxed, but if anything it reports is true, then others will be reporting and confirming what it says. When they don't, you know something is a little fishy.

Second of all, perhaps you could clarify what you mean by "...spending way too much money in the wrong areas..." We were in a drought. A drought that was costing the State in both economic and social terms. We have seen from this thread that other alternatives such as groundwater and more dams would not have worked had the drought continued - and I don't think anyone could claim that they predicted that the drought would break. So what would you have spent way less money on? And how would you have supplied the State with water?

Jim Boukas wrote:

Dylan_ wrote:

Jim Boukas wrote:
You must be a public servant, hey you should use a photo of Mickey as your Avatar, as I've never seen someone blindly support him as you do.


http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nationa ... 6050087724 - Read this article it might open you eyes a bit!!!

I just bought a new car! If we use your logic, the price tag should be over $200,000, because apparently we're including fuel and maintenance costs as well.

Use logic, $1M a day to run a hospital seems logical does it? Just as logical as running you're car at say $100/day over a 4 year life cycle is? That would make sense you bought a Hyundai and paying Ferrari runing costs hmm, let's not get lost in the numbers bottom line is these two projects are another example of spending way too much money in the wrong areas!!!!

Yes, $1M a day to run a hospital is reasonable - particularly for one as big as this. I dare say if you found the figures for the RAH it would have similar running costs.

Jim Boukas wrote: This and the $13 billion the Rann government are spending on the new hospital (I’m sure we could have built a new one on the existing sight for say $3 Billion give or take a few project re- baselines) will send this state back 50 years financially!!!!

I'm not necessairly agreeing with the $13 billion figure here, but you realise that whatever the total figure is it includes the cost of capital (we would have needed to borrow money and pay interest for a new hospital) *as well as* much of the running and mainteance costs?

I restate what I originally sent - maybe you should go comment on adelaide now.

And in Closing

Jim Boukas wrote:And in Closing

Er, Jim, did you not mean this poster to be on the thread relating to the service that is being provided by the private sector operator Transfield?

Oh, and did you give any thought to the questions I posed earlier in this thread about what your alternatives would have been? It is always easy to criticise from the sidelines, but much more of a challenge to say what needs to be done without the benefit of hindsight.

We'll all be singing kumbaya when our water rates go through the roof to pay for this white elephant.

rubberman wrote:

Jim Boukas wrote:And in Closing

Er, Jim, ....... did you give any thought to the questions I posed earlier in this thread about what your alternatives would have been? It is always easy to criticise from the sidelines, but much more of a challenge to say what needs to be done without the benefit of hindsight.

Still waiting to hear from you Jim. Wassup? Lemme guess, your job is to criticise, not to offer solutions ..... Oh, I get it! You're part of the Liberal Machine!

Jim Boukas wrote:We'll all be singing kumbaya when our water rates go through the roof to pay for this white elephant.

And what will you be singing when we have our next drought?

And what were we singing during the last one when water restrictions were costing a pretty penny?

*still waiting to hear what the alternative was supposed to be*