Staff Blog
GAO report on Delaware River dredging is out now!
Which is weird, cause the GAO just told us it wasn't gonna go public for another month. No matter. You can read all of it here, and though we haven't had time to sort through all of it yet, here are a few highlights:
The reanalysis’s crude oil benefit assumptions are not consistent with current market and industry conditions and future outlook, which raises questions about the reliability of the reanalysis’s crude oil benefit estimate.
Also:
The reanalysis’s containerized cargo benefit assumptions may not fully reflect current conditions and cannot be adequately assessed without additional information.
However:
The Corps’ reanalysis addressed many of the limitations that we had identified in 2002 in the project’s original economic analysis by using more recent information to correct invalid assumptions and outdated data, recalculating benefits and costs to correct miscalculations, and accounting for some of the economic uncertainty associated with the project. In addition, as we recommended, the Corps had independent experts review the reanalysis before submitting it to Congress.
Sez Maya van Rossum, the Delaware Riverkeeper who is staunchly against the dredging project, in a press release: "This report confirms that the Army Corps still has not provided an accurate picture of the Delaware deepening and its ramifications for our region. If the Army Corps had spent as much time in providing accurate economic and environmental analyses as it has in evading the requirements of environmental protection laws, we would have an accurate picture of the impacts of this project."
We'll report back with a more thorough analysis of the report early next week.
[...] previous Chicago TGs also facing M/F transit passes problem next GAO report on Delaware River dredging is out now! [...]
Holly, here’s a highlight:
Dredging, as it stands now according to the report, would cost $22.3 million a year while bring in revenues of around $30.1 million/yr, for a benefit to cost ratio of $1.35 made/$1 spent. The Corps originally said $1.40/$1, the gov’t asks that a project at least bring in as much as it costs on a 1:1 basis. The project, as it stands now, is economically viable.
Crude oil is a commodity that may in part be affected by the downturn in the economy. As it improves, so will imports, and so will the analysis of how much this project is worth.
if you read Mikesell’s “Fiscal Administration and Analysis” one of the leading public-sector finance textbooks, you will find that Cost-Benefit Analysis suffers from the limitation that it fails to account for benefits and costs external to the specific project. Thus, the concerns of the Riverkeepers are unlikely to be addressed by such an approach, regardless of the accuracy of the inputs. This is a basic problem of economics (failure to account for ‘externalities’) and one of the reasons why disputes between the Riverkeepers and the Corp result in a lot of talking past each other…They are quite literally speaking different lexicons.
Everyone should read the entire GAO report. Environmentalist may say and do anything to block this project. Don’t fall for environmental activist groups taking bits of text out of context to promote their agenda. There is something that the GAO does not take into consideration – all the potential growth in the port region. Once the channels are dredged to the proper depth, industry investment will create many good paying jobs. It is only common sense to believe that this will happen. What this country needs is JOBS! President IUOE Local 25
Those environmentalists/economist opposed to dredging should think “GREEN” when referring to maritime highways. FACT the most efficient way to move US goods is our aquatic highways. Railroads, trucks & planes play their important economic roles, but there is no better GREEN way than the waterways. Reduce our trade deficit, reliance on foreign oil & emissions
US marine highway trade yield positive benefits. One 15-barge tow removes 1,050 trucks from highways. 1-gallon of fuel = 1-ton of cargo 576 miles on a barge – a railcar 413, & by truck 155. By 2035, freight volume doubles. Goods to Phil. region arrive via other ports over land
95% of trade goes through only 36 ports & Phil port could play a major role providing tens-of-thousands of jobs. Funding loses harm the seaport & thousands of jobs. With trade doubling within 15-years, we may gain back what’s been lost. Once dredged taxpayer funding is minimal in comparison to future private industry seaport investment. President IUOE Local 25
Why should it come down to money? Sure a project can project that it will make X dollars, and cost Y dollars to make, that is the simplest part.
Dredgeing will cause the envirerment change, and possibly harm. Ecosystems are fragile, and the more we mess with them, the more damage we cause. There is already plenty of money made off of that river, from more natural, less harmful ways.
Any major dredgeing risks damageing fishing, recreation, tourism, and all to maybe make some one 40 cents on the dollar. Do they take into account the jobs lost, say from the rail road, trucking, and the industry support for those methods of shipping.
Pull the curtain back and see who is really pushing for this? It is the same people, that have taken alot of good paying jobs, to countries with little or no concern for the envirerment, or the people who work and live there. Is this just another way they push the expense of makeing more money for themselves off onto the people here? They stand to save themselves a fortune in shipping costs, and the heck with this country, or its laws for protecting it’s land, and lack of laws, protecting it’s jobs.
For every job that is created, makeing it cheaper to bring in goods from other countries, we give up jobs here manufactoring the same products.