Tuesday, February 24, 2009

Risk analysis study for conservancy relief absolutely needed

Risk analysis study for conservancy relief absolutely needed

Posted By Stabroek staff On February 24, 2009 @ 5:03 am In Letters | 2 Comments

Dear Editor,

The Government of Guyana is undaunted in its decision to discharge the relief structure & canal towards the Atlantic Ocean. Three opinions were expressed via SN’s letter columns: Engineer Charles Sohan agrees with the decision to drain to the Atlantic, Engineers Malcolm Alli & Mike Ragwen are in favour of a discharge to the Demerara River and I (also an Engineer by profession) prefer to let the results from a hydrological model and risk analysis determine the discharge location before spending $3B on the waterway.

My opinion was first published in the SN on 1-31-09 and may not have been totally understood since Engineers Alli and Ragwen were more interested in my modeling capability for low-level lands. It is against this background my response was conceived and will at the same time serve to substantiate my initial letter and hopefully will catch the attention of the relevant policy makers within the Government including the Tender Board.

My experience allows me to write about hydrological modeling as it pertains to the East Demerara Water Conservancy in conjunction with modeling for open conveyance systems (canals). Engineers Alli & Ragwen are of the opinion that ‘modeling for multiple outlets into tidal and non tidal areas is not simple”. I disagree, routing model software have ‘come a far way’ making them competitive, helpful and user friendly. The challenging task is to obtain tidal input data (the tidal cycle) for running the model. The tidal data will never-the-less still be needed to ‘come up with’ the number of doors required for the sluice. An important prediction on the effect of the tidal cycle due to global warming will have to be made. Do we prefer the Atlantic for gravity drainage or pump drainage? What is the operational plan during the dry weather?

I will now substantiate my initial letter. As part of the input parameters for modeling I included the length and cross section of the canals. This was not ‘by guess’. I have anticipated that the software of choice should be able to route the conservancy to the outfall, hence the need to have design information on the proposed and existing canals. The proposed canal (at Hope or Land of Canaan) should serve, at the least, dual functions: increased storage for the conservancy and act as conveyance for flood relief and is an integral part in the conservancy modeling process. I do not expect the consultant to model only the hydraulics of the canal unless (I reiterate) it is a canal design project and the flow is already known.

I did not get into details of risk analysis in my initial letter since it is not my area of expertise but what I did not expect was having engineers seek details about my risk plan specifics and suggesting that if this is rarely used as a management tool in Guyana then it should not be. My answer is simply TWW (Total Wrong Wuk). My position remains, a risk analysis study is required. The risks will eventually summarize costs and costs lead to decision making and approaches for funding. I need not be reminded about the need for dam safety analysis, this is a definite requirement.

My peers also have approximated the size of the canal needed. This I opine is premature, misleading and guesswork, even if they have access to information (reports on the conservancy) that the Government does not. Again I ask “Where are all the old reports from major projects undertaken in British Guiana”?

The Government has openly stated that Hope was the best site for the relief structure. I think they should consider making public the document/evidence that suggests that the Hope Canal is the best option before adventuring into spending $3B or are we launching the first “white” water project (as against white elephant) and I agree with Engineer Sohan that a re-tender should not be ruled out.

Yours faithfully,
Ralph Seegobin
(Professional Engineer)
2 Comments (Open | Close)

2 Comments To "Risk analysis study for conservancy relief absolutely needed"

#1 Comment By Brendan Samaroo On February 24, 2009 @ 6:13 am

Mr. President & Minister of Agriculture would it not make some sense to get all of these gentlemen together sit down and have a meeting with them and hear them out?

Is that too adult a thing for this government to consider?

#2 Comment By Cummins On February 24, 2009 @ 8:24 am

Before I took up a career in global business and policy I was a mechanical engineer. One of the things I learned and understood in undergraduate school and early career is that if engineers are arguing among themselves then nobody in the group knows what they are talking about for engineering is an (almost) exact science. All results and actions should be streaming from a UNIVERSALLY ACCEPTED mathematical formula that was TESTED and PROVEN in a laboratory setting and by prototype model. Apply the wrong formula and the results could be catastrophic and deadly. I find it disheartening that engineers are having a street fight over which formula or method to apply. In business policy we get do-overs, in engineering there are none; take it from me who have practiced in both fields.

Ralph, in the absence of knowing at what level the referenced gentlemen are in their respective careers your PE certification gives you more credibility on this argument as far as I am concerned. I am sensing the other gentlemen are more making a cost decision and we know the rule of engineering is safety first, cost second.
I wish you guys can agree on what formula should be applied.

Article printed from Stabroek News: http://www.stabroeknews.com

URL to article: http://www.stabroeknews.com/2009/letters/02/24/risk-analysis-study-for-conservancy-relief-absolutely-needed/

No comments: