Dear Editor,
Stabroek News’ article of October 29, 2010 details BK International’s plug of rip-rap instead of wave wall sea defence. For a company that has obtained the highest number of major sea defence contracts in this nation’s history and with all of them coming since 1992, BK International should know a thing or two about sea defence.
As such, it is entitled to publicly state preferences in construction. However, those stated preferences and the case BK makes isn’t beyond reproach. BK reportedly says rip-rap is better than and cheaper than mass concrete walls. It depends on who you are talking to and the problem you are seeking to correct. Indisputably, rip-rap is an excellent method of defence against erosion but it is weak against longshore drift.
However, most critically rip-rap is usually weak against flooding. It minimizes but does not prevent flooding. While erosion is a problem for Guyana, 2005 reminds us all that flooding is the primary threat to hundreds of thousands living along the coast. Replacement of riprap could also be at a faster rate than wave wall defences. Improperly laid rip-rap and wrong grading or elevation placement without knowledge of or without first studying several factors such as tide and wind could create even greater damage. Then there is the limited use of rip-rap in specific areas causing problems further along the same coastline or downstream. The quality of materials used plays a major role in the quality of the defence. So while rip-rap works well it is not a failsafe method of holding back the sea. In many instances and particularly for flood control, walled defences are still necessary and preferred. BK should tell the public whether it had constructed any of its currently much touted rip-rap defence along the East Coast prior to the 2005 flood.
Here is where I have serious problems with BK International’s plug. In August 2010, the Government of Guyana awarded a contract for the construction of 125 meters of rip-rap river defence structure in La Bagatelle, Leguan, Region Three, worth $59.8 million (US$299,000). That is US$2392 or G$478,400 per metre. In August 2009, BK International got a $467M contract for 810 meters of rip-rap river defence at Line Path, Corentyne. The cost per metre of rip-rap was US$2883 or G$576,600. BK admitted it completed sea defences including rip-rap at Stewartville for 550 metres at a cost of $221 million. The cost per metre of rip-rap on that project is US$2009 or G$410,800. By any measure, these costs per metre for rip-rap in Guyana’s cheap labour environment appear high.
Many contractors in developed nations would match or even better those prices. It is evident that rip-rap provides excellent returns on investment in Guyana. Add the fact that BK International owns Linden Quarries Inc means it should be able to supply its sea defence projects with rip-rap boulders at lowered cost. BK’s website states “BK has been awarded major Sea Defence projects in excess of thirty million United States Dollars (USD $30,000,000.00). In order to successfully execute these projects, BK will have to rely upon LQI for Quarry products which were created to provide same.” Further, concrete means importing cement thereby thinning margins.
Another reason why I question BK International’s plug is that rip-rap can be completed quickly, freeing up resources and vastly maximising profits compared to mass concrete sea walls. 550 metres of rip-rap were completed at Stewartville between April to September whereas 225 metres of mass concrete seawall at Chateau Margot is only 5% complete. Similarly, only 5% of 375 metres at La Bonne Intention is complete. The dramatic difference in completion rates are emphasized in the article.
Now, the faster completion of sea defence is good for the nation but is it better for BK International while being merely good or even average for citizens when compared to concrete sea walls? Is the idea that BK is proposing to convert some mass concrete projects to riprap good for the nation’s citizens who live in those areas?
This is where the public has to enter the fray and lend its voice to the facts so that taxpayers’ money isn’t wasted or directed in a specific manner without clarity of thought and intensity of debate.
Yours faithfully,
M Maxwell
